Discussion:
Cuba and its people
(too old to reply)
krp
2009-11-06 19:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade embargo
with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time, the embargo
has proven to be totally fruitless and has not accomplished what
it was originally intended to, that is, to effect regime change in
that country. In addition, it has also contributed to the economic
hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would confirm
that the embargo only represented a small portion of the ills that
have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that time, it did
become fashionable to blame the embargo for all the failures of
the regime as it was politically very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third comes
from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was a
obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the USSR
during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was ready
to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting to
pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere of
influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just like
Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs of
change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the hilt
(Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime against
the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US, it
will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can be
as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US wanted
immediate regime change they could have done so easily after the
Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes when
it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes or
they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil has
been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use of
sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea, has
it?
krp
2009-11-07 08:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't. Although far more nations honored sanctions
against South Africa than any other nation. What worked is that white South
Africa was simply out-bred. They faced opposition, by then extremely well
armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number. A repressive regime just
became untenable. Add to that that as younger generations came in to
government service less strident and less racist attitudes began to prevail.
Since South Africa was rich in gold and diamonds they survived for decades
against embargoes. South Africa changed by evolution. Sanctions always have
"some" effects, but never really work in and of themselves. South Africa
would have had to become a totalitarian state to the white people too. The
only thing that changed Idi Amin president for life dada was the threat of a
bullet in the base of his skull. He died in exile in Saudi Arabia.
PL
2009-11-07 12:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of removal of
assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions
against South Africa than any other nation. What worked is that white
South Africa was simply out-bred. They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation.
That is what they disliked
Post by krp
by then
extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared to the
"font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.

As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.

PL
krp
2009-11-07 13:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of removal of
assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions against South Africa than any
other nation. What worked is that white South Africa was simply out-bred.
They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation. That is what they disliked
Yes but it was pretty much the old children's chant; "sticks and stone
may break my bones , but names will never hurt me."
Post by PL
Post by krp
by then extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared to the
"font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.
As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.
Cuba thought they could take them on. But then Cuba was also SURE they
could take on the U.S. military in Grenada. That one didn't work out so well
for the Cubans, did it?
PL
2009-11-08 15:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of removal of
assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions against South Africa than
any other nation. What worked is that white South Africa was simply
out-bred. They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation. That is what they disliked
Yes but it was pretty much the old children's chant; "sticks and
stone may break my bones , but names will never hurt me."
economical sanctions do for an economy that needs export markets.
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
by then extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared to
the "font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.
As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.
Cuba thought they could take them on.
and they go their ass whipped.
They never made it to the border of Namibia.
The Swapo was wiped out.
Unita kept them at bay for years.
Post by krp
But then Cuba was also SURE
they could take on the U.S. military in Grenada. That one didn't work
out so well for the Cubans, did it?
Nope.
They even tried to sell their strategic defeat at Cuito Cuanavale es a
victory.
The Sa objective was to stop the Cubans and keep them away from the
border with Namibia and they achieved it.


PL
krp
2009-11-08 17:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of removal of
assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions against South Africa than
any other nation. What worked is that white South Africa was simply
out-bred. They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation. That is what they disliked
Yes but it was pretty much the old children's chant; "sticks and stone
may break my bones , but names will never hurt me."
economical sanctions do for an economy that needs export markets.
Well sometimes it can be a good thing to be isolated. I wish the U.S.
went back to isolationism and we told Europe to go screw themselves, if they
want to give a war (and Europe ALWAYS does) they will find we are on
vacation and can't be reached. We arfe still waiting for Europe to agree to
help Darfor, but they keep preventing us from helping the folks. ime we told
Europe to "PISS OFF!" and we just went in and helped no matter HOW MUCH the
European Union objects.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
by then extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared to the
"font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.
As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.
Cuba thought they could take them on.
and they go their ass whipped. They never made it to the border of
Namibia.
The Swapo was wiped out. Unita kept them at bay for years.
They still claim victory and Mandella gives them credit.
Post by PL
Post by krp
But then Cuba was also SURE they could take on the U.S. military in
Grenada. That one didn't work out so well for the Cubans, did it?
Nope.
They even tried to sell their strategic defeat at Cuito Cuanavale es a
victory.
The Sa objective was to stop the Cubans and keep them away from the
border with Namibia and they achieved it.
Cuba STILL claims a decisive victory and it is widely believe that the
Cuban forces CRUSHED South Africa's military.
PL
2009-11-08 22:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it
has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years.
During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts
on board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few
governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of removal
of assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions against South Africa
than any other nation. What worked is that white South Africa was
simply out-bred. They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation. That is what they disliked
Yes but it was pretty much the old children's chant; "sticks and
stone may break my bones , but names will never hurt me."
economical sanctions do for an economy that needs export markets.
Well sometimes it can be a good thing to be isolated. I wish the U.S.
went back to isolationism and we told Europe to go screw themselves, if
they want to give a war (and Europe ALWAYS does) they will find we are
on vacation and can't be reached. We arfe still waiting for Europe to
agree to help Darfor, but they keep preventing us from helping the
folks. ime we told Europe to "PISS OFF!" and we just went in and helped
no matter HOW MUCH the European Union objects.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
by then extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared to
the "font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.
As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.
Cuba thought they could take them on.
and they go their ass whipped. They never made it to the border of
Namibia.
The Swapo was wiped out. Unita kept them at bay for years.
They still claim victory and Mandella gives them credit.
Post by PL
Post by krp
But then Cuba was also SURE they could take on the U.S. military in
Grenada. That one didn't work out so well for the Cubans, did it?
Nope.
They even tried to sell their strategic defeat at Cuito Cuanavale es a
victory.
The Sa objective was to stop the Cubans and keep them away from the
border with Namibia and they achieved it.
Cuba STILL claims a decisive victory and it is widely believe that
the Cuban forces CRUSHED South Africa's military.
Fact: no MPLA or Cuba troops ever moved beyond that point.
Fact: SWAPO was a non entity from then onwards.
Fact: SA's northern border was never under threat after that.
Fact: UNITA continued in the area for years after that.
Fact: Cuba and MPLA casualties (men and material) were way above and SA
FNLA losees.

Only people that have no knowledge of the facts can ever believe this
was anything but a strategic victory for apartheid troops.

PL
krp
2009-11-10 01:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is,
to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has
also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its
people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion
of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During
that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for
all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade
was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were
obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of removal of
assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions against South Africa than
any other nation. What worked is that white South Africa was simply
out-bred. They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation. That is what they disliked
Yes but it was pretty much the old children's chant; "sticks and
stone may break my bones , but names will never hurt me."
economical sanctions do for an economy that needs export markets.
Well sometimes it can be a good thing to be isolated. I wish the U.S.
went back to isolationism and we told Europe to go screw themselves, if
they want to give a war (and Europe ALWAYS does) they will find we are on
vacation and can't be reached. We arfe still waiting for Europe to agree
to help Darfor, but they keep preventing us from helping the folks. ime
we told Europe to "PISS OFF!" and we just went in and helped no matter
HOW MUCH the European Union objects.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
by then extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared to
the "font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.
As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.
Cuba thought they could take them on.
and they go their ass whipped. They never made it to the border of
Namibia.
The Swapo was wiped out. Unita kept them at bay for years.
They still claim victory and Mandella gives them credit.
Post by PL
Post by krp
But then Cuba was also SURE they could take on the U.S. military in
Grenada. That one didn't work out so well for the Cubans, did it?
Nope.
They even tried to sell their strategic defeat at Cuito Cuanavale es a
victory.
The Sa objective was to stop the Cubans and keep them away from the
border with Namibia and they achieved it.
Cuba STILL claims a decisive victory and it is widely believe that the
Cuban forces CRUSHED South Africa's military.
Fact: no MPLA or Cuba troops ever moved beyond that point.
Fact: SWAPO was a non entity from then onwards.
Fact: SA's northern border was never under threat after that.
Fact: UNITA continued in the area for years after that.
Fact: Cuba and MPLA casualties (men and material) were way above and SA
FNLA losees.
Only people that have no knowledge of the facts can ever believe this
was anything but a strategic victory for apartheid troops.
Whatever happened to all those missing MiGs?
PL
2009-11-10 12:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by krp
Published: Friday | October 30, 2009
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this
time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has
not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that
is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it
has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its
people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small
portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years.
During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo
for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products
produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the
blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations
with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were
obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and
parts on board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat
to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful
sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive
system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few
governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
And over 2 Million Iraqis died during that time.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
Typically sanctions don't work. Hasn't budged Cuba OR North Korea,
has it?
Worked in South Africa, Mugabe is shaking and Myanmar wants to talk.
Actually, NO, it didn't.
Apartheid ended over economical sanctions and the thtrat of
removal of assistance.
Not over any military threat.
Post by krp
Although far more nations honored sanctions against South Africa
than any other nation. What worked is that white South Africa was
simply out-bred. They faced opposition,
like in sanctions,international condemnation. That is what they disliked
Yes but it was pretty much the old children's chant; "sticks and
stone may break my bones , but names will never hurt me."
economical sanctions do for an economy that needs export markets.
Well sometimes it can be a good thing to be isolated. I wish the
U.S. went back to isolationism and we told Europe to go screw
themselves, if they want to give a war (and Europe ALWAYS does) they
will find we are on vacation and can't be reached. We arfe still
waiting for Europe to agree to help Darfor, but they keep preventing
us from helping the folks. ime we told Europe to "PISS OFF!" and we
just went in and helped no matter HOW MUCH the European Union objects.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
by then extremely well armed, that was perhaps 20 times their number.
and they never lost a battle.
SA was even stopped by the US from taking over Angola.
Don't underestimate their military strength at the time compared
to the "font line states" that had no real appetite for a fight.
Angola never moved beyond its borders.
As you say a change of generation and sanctions did the trick.
Cuba thought they could take them on.
and they go their ass whipped. They never made it to the border of
Namibia.
The Swapo was wiped out. Unita kept them at bay for years.
They still claim victory and Mandella gives them credit.
Post by PL
Post by krp
But then Cuba was also SURE they could take on the U.S. military
in Grenada. That one didn't work out so well for the Cubans, did it?
Nope.
They even tried to sell their strategic defeat at Cuito Cuanavale es
a victory.
The Sa objective was to stop the Cubans and keep them away from the
border with Namibia and they achieved it.
Cuba STILL claims a decisive victory and it is widely believe that
the Cuban forces CRUSHED South Africa's military.
Fact: no MPLA or Cuba troops ever moved beyond that point.
Fact: SWAPO was a non entity from then onwards.
Fact: SA's northern border was never under threat after that.
Fact: UNITA continued in the area for years after that.
Fact: Cuba and MPLA casualties (men and material) were way above and SA
FNLA losees.
Only people that have no knowledge of the facts can ever believe this
was anything but a strategic victory for apartheid troops.
Whatever happened to all those missing MiGs?
The results of the campaign up to April 1988 were 4,785 killed on the
Cuban/Faplan side, with 94 tanks and hundreds of combat vehicles
destroyed, against 31 South Africans killed in action, 3 tanks destroyed
(SADF tanks entered the war after the Lomba River campaign) and 11 SADF
armoured cars and troop carriers lost. A total of 9 Migs were destroyed
and only 1 SAAF Mirage shot down.

THE BATTLE OF CUITO CUANAVALE
Cuba's Mythical Victory
http://www.rhodesia.nl/cuito.htm

PL
krp
2009-11-07 08:52:36 UTC
Permalink
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply sanctions, I
have no argument with YOUR consistency. I do again however state that the
US foreign policy in general, and toward CUba specifically as relates to
the embargo, is inconsistent. It is cold war based and is about hegemony
and (what the US considers its) spheres of political influence.
Actually the embargo with Cuba has nothing to do with hegemony. Cuba
just isn't significant enough to be a consideration for that level of
animosity. Cuba under the Castros is much more like a gnat crawling on the
ass of a dinosaur with the intent of rape. The stated purpose is to effect
desired change to Cuba. The embargo has had the opposite effect, as
embargoes generally are ineffective for changing behavior, they are more
like a little boy's game of taking your bat, ball and glove and going home
because you can't be captain. Two things have kept the Castros in power. The
first was the ill advised and half-assed Bay of Pigs invasion. The second
has been the embargo.

U.S. foreign policy toward all of Latin America has been historically
stupid. The U.S. State Department has seen to that fiasco. The trouble has
been, however, that there have not been governments in the countries that
could be dealt with rationally. Most of Latin American nations have
histories of frequent revolutions and alternating extreme right wing
dictatorships replaced by extreme left wing dictatorships replaced by
extreme right wing dictatorships, meanwhile always corrupt. Such is the
legacy of the Spanish. If you want to play history games - we can - of
course- waste the time. Real democracy and Latin America are strangers with
the possible exception of Costa Rica.

For the most part democratic elections in Latin America are a joke.
People get elected and then suddenly democracy flies out the window as their
lust for power grows and they wish to be President for Life, and to rule by
decree. No better examples of that disease can be found than Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela and Zelaya of Honduras.

There is no simple answer for Latin America although the children at the
State Department wish to impose one. As to Cuba - it remains not because of
any legacy of the cold war, but because of Cuba's government continuing to
feed it. Of course the U.S. isn't going to engage in free trade with Cuba.
The simple reason today is that Cuba doesn't pay its bills. It is at the top
of deadbeat nations. The U.S. isn't stupid enough to follow the example of
the USSR in giving Cuba a large hunk of our wealth knowing that it won't do
any good and won't change anything. Normal relations aren't possible with
Cuba's government being much like Iran's and North Korea, where the safety
of Americans who might visit will not be protected by the Cuban government.
I'd like many Americans to be able to see what I have in Cuba and dispel the
bullshit put out by both governments. I suspect that the embargo will really
change when the attitudes in Havana change. Probably not before.
krp
2009-11-07 13:13:51 UTC
Permalink
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade embargo
with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time, the embargo
has proven to be totally fruitless and has not accomplished what
it was originally intended to, that is, to effect regime change
in that country. In addition, it has also contributed to the
economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would confirm
that the embargo only represented a small portion of the ills
that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that time, it
did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all the failures
of the regime as it was politically very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third comes
from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was a
obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the USSR
during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting to
pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere of
influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs of
change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US, it
will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily after
the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes when
it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes or
they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil has
been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use of
sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply sanctions, I
have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general, and
toward CUba specifically as relates to the embargo, is inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of countries you
can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere. Seems like all but a
couple are either right win dictators or socialist dictators. From where I
sit, I can't really justify any distinction. A dictator is a dictator
whether they have a red sash festooned with phony medals or a green one with
phony medals. They are ALL full of shit. The only difference is whether
their bullshit smalls like beans or it smells like onions. It's still shit.
PL
2009-11-08 15:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled stand with regard to its position on the American
trade embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this
time, the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has
not accomplished what it was originally intended to, that
is, to effect regime change in that country. In addition, it
has also contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and
its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During
that time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo
for all the failures of the regime as it was politically
very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced
with virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade
was a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with
the USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were
obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its
rightful sphere of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some
signs of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to
the hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the
US, it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments
can be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if
the US wanted immediate regime change they could have done so
easily after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive
regimes or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but
'civil rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to
assert/further its political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply sanctions,
I have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general, and
toward CUba specifically as relates to the embargo, is inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of countries
you can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere.
Not that many any more, thank God.
Post by krp
Seems like all
but a couple are either right win dictators or socialist dictators. From
where I sit, I can't really justify any distinction.
In that i agree.
Dictator is dictator, left or right.

PL
krp
2009-11-08 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by PL
Post by krp
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its principled
stand with regard to its position on the American trade
embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this time,
the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has not
accomplished what it was originally intended to, that is, to
effect regime change in that country. In addition, it has also
contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During that
time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo for all
the failures of the regime as it was politically very
expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced with
virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade was
a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with the
USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US wanting
to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its rightful sphere
of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some signs
of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to the
hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the US,
it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments can
be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if the US
wanted immediate regime change they could have done so easily
after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive regimes
or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but 'civil
rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to assert/further its
political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar,
...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply sanctions, I
have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general, and
toward Cuba specifically as relates to the embargo, is inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of countries you
can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere.
Not that many any more, thank God.
Yes many still are not what any reasonable person could call fully
functional democracies. There are those who argue that Honduras we a
democracy under Zelaya. Just as they also argue that Hugo Chavez was
democraticly elected. The same folks arge that Allede of Chilie was running
a democracy. Even though he too was violating the nation's Constitution and
ruling by DECREE, nationalizing business, imposing strict censorship on the
media and arresting those who disagree with him. Remolding democratic
insttutions into his own personal empire. Please don't forget that Adolph
Hitler came to office in a democratic process. Can we forget that Saddam
Hussein WON his last election by 99%? Of course thre 1% who voted against
him were executed promptly.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Seems like all but a couple are either right win dictators or socialist
dictators. From where I sit, I can't really justify any distinction.
In that i agree. Dictator is dictator, left or right.
A dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator.
PL
2009-11-08 22:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled stand with regard to its position on the
American trade embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt
that at this time, the embargo has proven to be totally
fruitless and has not accomplished what it was originally
intended to, that is, to effect regime change in that
country. In addition, it has also contributed to the
economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion
of the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years.
During that time, it did become fashionable to blame the
embargo for all the failures of the regime as it was
politically very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced
with virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade
was a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations
with the USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo
were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US
was ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and
parts on board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to
US interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its
rightful sphere of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system,
just like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some
signs of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to
the hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political
and economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the
US, it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments
can be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if
the US wanted immediate regime change they could have done so
easily after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive
regimes when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive
regimes or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is
about political influence, american hegemony and economic
interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but
'civil rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to
assert/further its political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if
oil has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more
use of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply
sanctions, I have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general, and
toward Cuba specifically as relates to the embargo, is inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of countries
you can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere.
Not that many any more, thank God.
Yes many still are not what any reasonable person could call fully
functional democracies.
In my opinion because education has failed.
As Europe shows: better education, less dictators.
I am sponsoring kids in various Latin American countries as I believe
that better education is the way to avoid these problems.
Post by krp
There are those who argue that Honduras we a
democracy under Zelaya. Just as they also argue that Hugo Chavez was
democraticly elected. The same folks arge that Allede of Chilie was
running a democracy. Even though he too was violating the nation's
Constitution and ruling by DECREE, nationalizing business, imposing
strict censorship on the media and arresting those who disagree with
him. Remolding democratic insttutions into his own personal empire.
Please don't forget that Adolph Hitler came to office in a democratic
process. Can we forget that Saddam Hussein WON his last election by 99%?
Of course thre 1% who voted against him were executed promptly.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Seems like all but a couple are either right win dictators or
socialist dictators. From where I sit, I can't really justify any
distinction.
In that i agree. Dictator is dictator, left or right.
A dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator.
You are right.

PL
krp
2009-11-10 01:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled stand with regard to its position on the American
trade embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt that at this
time, the embargo has proven to be totally fruitless and has
not accomplished what it was originally intended to, that
is, to effect regime change in that country. In addition, it
has also contributed to the economic hardship of Cuba and
its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small portion of
the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the years. During
that time, it did become fashionable to blame the embargo
for all the failures of the regime as it was politically
very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced
with virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A third
comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the blockade
was a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed relations with
the USSR during the cold war the blockade and embargo were
obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US was
ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and parts on
board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat to US
interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its
rightful sphere of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system, just
like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some
signs of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself to
the hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new crime
against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political and
economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit the
US, it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few governments
can be as displeasing to the US than the Castro regime, but if
the US wanted immediate regime change they could have done so
easily after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive regimes
when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive
regimes or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is about
political influence, american hegemony and economic interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but
'civil rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to
assert/further its political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if oil
has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more use
of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply sanctions,
I have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general, and
toward Cuba specifically as relates to the embargo, is inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of countries
you can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere.
Not that many any more, thank God.
Yes many still are not what any reasonable person could call fully
functional democracies.
In my opinion because education has failed.
As Europe shows: better education, less dictators.
I am sponsoring kids in various Latin American countries as I believe
that better education is the way to avoid these problems.
Oh PLEASE, PL don't blame Hitler, Stalin et all on a lack of
education.That might be in the fart hinterlands of the rural USSR, but
Germany was one of the best educated nations in the world in the 1930's.
Lack of education is the lamest of excuses. Venezuela isn't a nation of
stupid or ignorant people. What's the problem then? The infantile belief
that you can get something for nothing. I know people with doctorate degrees
who believe that. People will buy any BULLSHIT they want too. ALL of the
men who took part in 9-11 had DEGREES. Most were engineers.
Post by PL
Post by krp
There are those who argue that Honduras we a democracy under Zelaya. Just
as they also argue that Hugo Chavez was democraticly elected. The same
folks arge that Allede of Chilie was running a democracy. Even though he
too was violating the nation's Constitution and ruling by DECREE,
nationalizing business, imposing strict censorship on the media and
arresting those who disagree with him. Remolding democratic insttutions
into his own personal empire. Please don't forget that Adolph Hitler came
to office in a democratic process. Can we forget that Saddam Hussein WON
his last election by 99%? Of course thre 1% who voted against him were
executed promptly.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Seems like all but a couple are either right win dictators or socialist
dictators. From where I sit, I can't really justify any distinction.
In that i agree. Dictator is dictator, left or right.
A dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator.
You are right.
Most of Europe believes socialism works, even in countries going broke
because of it because greedy people want a free ride, screw the other guy.
PL
2009-11-10 12:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled stand with regard to its position on the
American trade embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt
that at this time, the embargo has proven to be totally
fruitless and has not accomplished what it was
originally intended to, that is, to effect regime change
in that country. In addition, it has also contributed to
the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small
portion of the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the
years. During that time, it did become fashionable to
blame the embargo for all the failures of the regime as
it was politically very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced
with virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A
third comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the
blockade was a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed
relations with the USSR during the cold war the blockade
and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US
was ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and
parts on board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat
to US interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really
about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its
rightful sphere of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system,
just like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some
signs of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself
to the hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new
crime against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political
and economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit
the US, it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few
governments can be as displeasing to the US than the Castro
regime, but if the US wanted immediate regime change they
could have done so easily after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive
regimes when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive
regimes or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is
about political influence, american hegemony and economic
interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but
'civil rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to
assert/further its political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if
oil has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more
use of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply
sanctions, I have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general,
and toward Cuba specifically as relates to the embargo, is
inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of
countries you can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere.
Not that many any more, thank God.
Yes many still are not what any reasonable person could call fully
functional democracies.
In my opinion because education has failed.
As Europe shows: better education, less dictators.
I am sponsoring kids in various Latin American countries as I believe
that better education is the way to avoid these problems.
Oh PLEASE, PL don't blame Hitler, Stalin et all on a lack of
education.That might be in the fart hinterlands of the rural USSR, but
Germany was one of the best educated nations in the world in the 1930's.
Lack of education is the lamest of excuses. Venezuela isn't a nation of
stupid or ignorant people. What's the problem then? The infantile belief
that you can get something for nothing. I know people with doctorate
degrees who believe that. People will buy any BULLSHIT they want too.
ALL of the men who took part in 9-11 had DEGREES. Most were engineers.
Post by PL
Post by krp
There are those who argue that Honduras we a democracy under Zelaya.
Just as they also argue that Hugo Chavez was democraticly elected.
The same folks arge that Allede of Chilie was running a democracy.
Even though he too was violating the nation's Constitution and ruling
by DECREE, nationalizing business, imposing strict censorship on the
media and arresting those who disagree with him. Remolding democratic
insttutions into his own personal empire. Please don't forget that
Adolph Hitler came to office in a democratic process. Can we forget
that Saddam Hussein WON his last election by 99%? Of course thre 1%
who voted against him were executed promptly.
Post by PL
Post by krp
Seems like all but a couple are either right win dictators or
socialist dictators. From where I sit, I can't really justify any
distinction.
In that i agree. Dictator is dictator, left or right.
A dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator is a dictator.
You are right.
Most of Europe believes socialism works, even in countries going
broke because of it because greedy people want a free ride, screw the
other guy.
You should understand one thing, KRP, when in Europe speak about
socialism they speak of democratic socialism that favors a mixed
economic system, not the Stalinist communism Dan refers to as "socialism".

In this mitigated and democratic format it isn't as disastrous.

Nobody in Europe, even in the East, wants the repression of the
Stalinist systems back though older people may long for the certainty of
the past, interviews have shown that none would be willing to pay for
that perceived security by returning to communism.

PL

PL
PL
2009-11-10 12:16:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
Post by PL
Post by krp
The Jamaican Government must be complimented on its
principled stand with regard to its position on the
American trade embargo with Cuba. There can be no doubt
that at this time, the embargo has proven to be totally
fruitless and has not accomplished what it was
originally intended to, that is, to effect regime change
in that country. In addition, it has also contributed to
the economic hardship of Cuba and its people.
A proper analysis of the Cuban situation, however, would
confirm that the embargo only represented a small
portion of the ills that have bedevilled Cuba over the
years. During that time, it did become fashionable to
blame the embargo for all the failures of the regime as
it was politically very expedient to do so.
but really, what is the embargo really about?
Denying the regime access to markets for products produced
with virtual slave labor and expropriated assets.
Ensuring the regime can not profit from its abuses.
On the other hand Cuba now imports 80% of its food. A
third comes from the US.
That is a good thing as well.
When nuclear missiles were threatening the US the
blockade was a obvious US solution. Whilst Cuba enjoyed
relations with the USSR during the cold war the blockade
and embargo were obvious.
There was never a real "blockade" except made when the US
was ready to stop some ships they knew had missiles and
parts on board.
With the demise of the USSR and Cuba posing less threat
to US interests than W Bush, what is the embargo really
about?
Its about differences in political ideology and the US
wanting to pull Cuba back in to what it thinks is its
rightful sphere of influence.
It is about ending the last remnant of an abusive system,
just like Zimbabwe and Myanmar.
no, thats the rhetoric,
It is also a fact.
Look at China.
When change starts US attitudes change.
The US changed policy to China years ago as China gave some
signs of change.
China is on a new "long march". One that will benefit its people.
Cuba under castro is in limbo until Fidel dies.
Even Raul fears his brother.
After Fidel the Raul clan (army) will try to enrich itself
to the hilt (Russia style) and the system will fall.
The international community should act to deny that new
crime against the Cuban people.
but is not really about human rights. It is about political
and economic interests.
It would be in US interest to freely sell goods to Cuba.
They don't.
So clearly no "sort term" economical gain.
In the long term transition in Cuba will not just benefit
the US, it will also cost them in aid.
There is no "West Cuba" to pay for the revival of "East Cuba".
As far as politics is concerned I am sure that few
governments can be as displeasing to the US than the Castro
regime, but if the US wanted immediate regime change they
could have done so easily after the Berlin wall fell.
The Russians wouldn't have lifted a (nuclear) finger.
The US is happy to trde an have relations with abusive
regimes when it suits their interests.
and it could do so with Cuba, but it doesn't.
So what is your point: they should trade with all abusive
regimes or they should sanction all abusive regimes?
my point is that the embargo and US 'punishment' of Cuba is
about political influence, american hegemony and economic
interests.
My point is that it goes beyond that.
It can be accompanied by concerns over civil rights etc but
'civil rights' doesn't stop the US when it wants to
assert/further its political and hegemonic interests.
I guess they should take human rights more in to concern.
that means more sanctions, not only against Cuba, Zimbabwe,
Myanmar, ...
As people said, The US would have invaded Zimbabwe by now if
oil has been involved.
Don't think so.
In Cuba there is oil and no invasion underway last I saw.
(snip)
In fact George, your arguments show that there need to be more
use of sanctions.
were there sanctions against Chile during Pinochets rule?
No.
Should there have been: yes.
Has Chile returned to democracy in the end: yes.
Cuba: no.
were there sanctions against Iraq when they were waring with Iran?
Nope.
Should there have been sanctions against Saddam for years: yes.
Is there some hope for a better system now: yes.
Cuba: no.
What is your point: all or none?
If you are consistent you should demand more sanctions, not less.
you are consistent in your application of wanting to apply
sanctions, I have no argument with YOUR consistency.
Thank you.
I do again however state that the US foreign policy in general,
and toward Cuba specifically as relates to the embargo, is
inconsistent.
The the question remains: which consistency to follow.
I say don't support dictators.
Oh well, that position really cuts down on the number of
countries you can deal with, especially in the western hemisphere.
Not that many any more, thank God.
Yes many still are not what any reasonable person could call fully
functional democracies.
In my opinion because education has failed.
As Europe shows: better education, less dictators.
I am sponsoring kids in various Latin American countries as I believe
that better education is the way to avoid these problems.
Oh PLEASE, PL don't blame Hitler, Stalin et all on a lack of
education.
(snip)

I am referring to Cuba and Latin America today.
Stalin and Hitler were totalitarian dictatorships.
Stalin was brought to power with weapons, Hitler riding on the back of
misguided nationalism and "revanchism".
Post by krp
Venezuela isn't a nation of
stupid or ignorant people.
It has a large population of lower educated and poorer that are very
susceptible to populism.
They are more easily misled.
Hitler used similar populist tactics to get to power using revanchism
and antisemitism as levers (amongst others).
Post by krp
What's the problem then? The infantile belief
that you can get something for nothing.
A populist belief easily spread amongst those that haven't the frame of
reference a better education brings.
In Europe for example populists would stand little chance to achieve
similar results.
Some may have some initial success, but their lack of proving real
results would see them punished at the next vote.

PL

Loading...