# Cuba



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

While reading the somewhat ill-advised rhetoric of Hugo Chavez, I noticed his references to the US "choking" Cuba. I have always thought this was bad policy, that the best way to end communism was to let the people get even the smallest taste of free markets and freedom. Does anyone else think the US should toss open the trade doors to Cuba?


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

I agree. If China, why not Cuba? There are much worse governments that we deal with.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I think we all have the basic right to do business with whomever we choose. 

American businesses that are not allowed to sell goods there have been harmed. American consumers who have been prevented from buying Cuban goods have been harmed.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

This is one of the stupidest policies this country has ever implemented (right up there with invading Iraq). Is there that many anti-Castro Cubans in Florida that a politician who ended the trade embargo would lose his office because of that move?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> I agree. If China, why not Cuba? There are much worse governments that we deal with.


Why? Because China is more important than Cuba and our interests are better served dealing with China than with Cuba. China is more of a global player and if we do to them what we're doing to Cuba it will be to our disadvantage. Cuba could really offer nothing of substance except cigars, sugar and a vacation spot of which we already have plenty. We're already taking their baseball players so we don't need to worry about that.

Also Cuba is in our backyard and therefore within our sphere of influence and I think we're right to keep any country within that sphere under our thumb.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Also Cuba is in our backyard and therefore within our sphere of influence and I think we're right to keep any country within that sphere under our thumb.


And it's amazing how well that policy worked to that effect...


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Étienne said:


> And it's amazing how well that policy worked to that effect...


Yup, the Castro regime is going to crumble any day now...


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Yup, the Castro regime is going to crumble any day now...


I don't think it really matters. He will die soon and if another dictator steps in then who cares? They're boxed in and since the USSR fell their main sugar daddy is no more. If we opened relations with Cuba the only person who would profit is Castro and his cronies. Look at China; the only people benefiting from the economic "boom" are those in power and the privilaged few. The peasants are still peasants and they're not even allowed to live or work in the cities unless given special permission. They provide the cheap labor but don't benefit from the gains.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Ok, but what exactly was the point of our Cuba policy? What has that policy achieved?

I think that what most people here are saying is that if we hadn't taken the position on Cuba that we have taken then the Castro regime might already be gone by now.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Fidel's revolution was so popular he's never bothered with elections and turned to communism. He had his de riquer purge and retaliation with executions, including an american citizen. American properties and investments were seized without compensation, including my father's first ever cuban cleanroom to assemble medical electronic equipment. Since el jefe boasts of universal healthcare, I'd like due recognition of my family's effort, if not reimbursement plus interest. This was in the context of the Cold War, when Cuba was literally a toehold in this hemisphere. Nikita wasn't exactly installing missiles in North Carolina.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Why? Because China is more important than Cuba and our interests are better served dealing with China than with Cuba. China is more of a global player and if we do to them what we're doing to Cuba it will be to our disadvantage. Cuba could really offer nothing of substance except cigars, sugar and a vacation spot of which we already have plenty. We're already taking their baseball players so we don't need to worry about that.
> 
> Also Cuba is in our backyard and therefore within our sphere of influence and I think we're right to keep any country within that sphere under our thumb.


Wow.

I think that it is precisely because Cuba is so unimportant that it makes little sense to have such restrictions.

Do you really think that geographic proximity gives USA the right to keep other nations "under our thumb"?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Ok, but what exactly was the point of our Cuba policy?


To get electoral votes in south FL!

-spence


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Kav said:


> Nikita was installing missiles in North Carolina.


Huh!?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Spence said:


> To get electoral votes in south FL!
> 
> -spence


Precisely.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I've lived in Miami Beach and worked as a journalist in Miami. If you haven't had the pleasure, you cannot possibly imagine the depth of the hatred for Castro there. I do not exaggerate when I tell you I don't think a politician in South Florida would live more than a week if he said anything remotely positive about Castro, even something like "Fidel didn't smell as bad as I expected." It is virtually impossible to have a rational, dispassionate discussion about Cuba in South Florida. I used to joke that if someone wanted to commit suicide, all he needed to do was wear a Viva Fidel T-shirt in a certain Miami neighborhood and someone was bound to put him out of his misery.

Odoreater could experience something approaching that in some parts of Union City, N.J., where I worked as a journalist in the late 1970s and early 1980s, although it was more heavily Cuban then than now. A lot of them moved to the burbs since. It was there when a baseball game I was covering was interrupted by a bomb scare over the mere possibility of Castro visiting the UN in '79.

I don't imagine there are enough Cuban-Americans to decide a national election, but in a close race, forget Florida and a good chunk of New Jersey and New York if one suggests weakening on Cuba one iota.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

crs said:


> Odoreater could experience something approaching that in some parts of Union City, N.J., where I worked as a journalist in the late 1970s and early 1980s, although it was more heavily Cuban then than now. A lot of them moved to the burbs since. It was there when a baseball game I was covering was interrupted by a bomb scare over the mere possibility of Castro visiting the UN in '79.
> 
> I don't imagine there are enough Cuban-Americans to decide a national election, but in a close race, forget Florida and a good chunk of New Jersey and New York if one suggests weakening on Cuba one iota.


I think south Florida is probably the reason we still have an embargo on Cuba. The Cubans in NJ don't nearly have the political clout that it seems the Cubans in Florida have - probably because there's not enough of them to get anything more than a representative elected. I can understand their position - I mean, I would be pretty pissed too if someone took all my property and kicked me out of my country; but, from a dispassionate point of view, I think our Cuba policy is useless and even counter-productive.


----------



## Rubini (Jun 26, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> I agree. If China, why not Cuba? There are much worse governments that we deal with.


Name one.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

Rubini said:


> Name one.


Worse than Cuba?

Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Rubini (Jun 26, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> Worse than Cuba?
> 
> Saudi Arabia.


I wasn't aware that tyranny was an Olympic event, but if it were, Castro would have few competitors. He is the longest-standing dictator in the history of the world, and unlike the government of Saudi Arabia, he is explicitly and militantly hostile to the United States. Castro's goons have done terrible things to American citizens, up to and including torture and murder, in among other places, the Hanoi Hilton.

I don't like the Saudis either. But the Saudi government is friendlier to the United States than Cuba. I don't trust the Saudis for a second, but they are at the very least not hostile to the United States. In fact, they are nominally our allies. I suspect that's why they get trashed so much in the press.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Dealing with other nations solely on merit or morally has never been any government's criteria. The old phrase ' XYZ doesn't have friends, only interests' is the handmaiden to 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend.' We've propped up, allied,done business with and overlooked the evils of a veritable rogues gallery.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Hmmm... now why would you keep a small island nation that once tried to park a few megatons worth of medium range ballistic missiles a short swim from Florida under your thumb...

thinking
thinking
Wait, don't tell me, I'll get there


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> Do you really think that geographic proximity gives USA the right to keep other nations "under our thumb"?


Yes it does. We need to forget this notion of attempting to morally justify our foreign policy choices. We deal with China and Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations not because we share "common values" or any of that other nonsense; we deal with them because it is to our benefit to do so. Cuba offers nothing and I don't think its a wise idea to embolden and help prop up a dictator right in our own backyard. Now if Cuba had something of strategic interest to us that would be different. To the Russians they did and they tried to take advantage of it but failed.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

crs said:


> I've lived in Miami Beach and worked as a journalist in Miami. If you haven't had the pleasure, you cannot possibly imagine the depth of the hatred for Castro there. I do not exaggerate when I tell you I don't think a politician in South Florida would live more than a week if he said anything remotely positive about Castro, even something like "Fidel didn't smell as bad as I expected." It is virtually impossible to have a rational, dispassionate discussion about Cuba in South Florida. I used to joke that if someone wanted to commit suicide, all he needed to do was wear a Viva Fidel T-shirt in a certain Miami neighborhood and someone was bound to put him out of his misery.
> 
> Odoreater could experience something approaching that in some parts of Union City, N.J., where I worked as a journalist in the late 1970s and early 1980s, although it was more heavily Cuban then than now. A lot of them moved to the burbs since. It was there when a baseball game I was covering was interrupted by a bomb scare over the mere possibility of Castro visiting the UN in '79.
> 
> I don't imagine there are enough Cuban-Americans to decide a national election, but in a close race, forget Florida and a good chunk of New Jersey and New York if one suggests weakening on Cuba one iota.


Actually, Castro quite admired in NY. Particularly the Upper West side and Harlem. I think the UWS leftist elites share his socialist leanings and actually believe he provides great medical care and education. Some just admire his ability to crush dissent no doubt. 
Real quote from a highly educated, former banker come public school teacher,"He must be doing something right, literacy rates are so high there". Another from a British subject (lacking higher education though not for lack of family means) who had the pleasure of visiting the island paradise on UK flagged super-yacht, "You Americans are full of it, I saw many books in a classroom I visited, so their education system must be good."

He was cheered in Harlem back in the 60s as Chavez was yesterday. I believe Dick Gregory was leading the cheers back when, and Danny Glover was yesterday. I cannot even begin to explain this other than a thoroughly propagandized and deluded bunch of people. All I can say is, a year or 2 scrounging for groceries in Cuba might make even life in the PJs seem pretty sweet.

I dont think anti-Castro Cuban Americans are an electoral force in either NY city or state or we would have more Republicans. Besides who wants Governors, Mayors, City counsel folk making foreign policy anyway?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think we should seperate the embargo policy from military policy. Obviously having Soviet nukes in Cuba was a threat to the US. However keeping a trade strangle hold on Cuba is not the best way to turn them into less hostile neighbors. True Castro was/is never going to be a friend of the US, but we can undermine his position through trade I think. Free trade always raises all boats and is still the best weapon against tyranny and centrally planned economies.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Yes it does. We need to forget this notion of attempting to morally justify our foreign policy choices. We deal with China and Saudi Arabia and a host of other nations not because we share "common values" or any of that other nonsense; we deal with them because it is to our benefit to do so. Cuba offers nothing and I don't think its a wise idea to embolden and help prop up a dictator right in our own backyard. Now if Cuba had something of strategic interest to us that would be different. To the Russians they did and they tried to take advantage of it but failed.


Cheers


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Literide said:


> Actually, Castro quite admired in NY. Particularly the Upper West side and Harlem. I think the UWS leftist elites share his socialist leanings and actually believe he provides great medical care and education. Some just admire his ability to crush dissent no doubt.
> Real quote from a highly educated, former banker come public school teacher,"He must be doing something right, literacy rates are so high there". Another from a British subject (lacking higher education though not for lack of family means) who had the pleasure of visiting the island paradise on UK flagged super-yacht, "You Americans are full of it, I saw many books in a classroom I visited, so their education system must be good."
> 
> He was cheered in Harlem back in the 60s as Chavez was yesterday. I believe Dick Gregory was leading the cheers back when, and Danny Glover was yesterday. I cannot even begin to explain this other than a thoroughly propagandized and deluded bunch of people. All I can say is, a year or 2 scrounging for groceries in Cuba might make even life in the PJs seem pretty sweet.
> ...


You are basing your stereotype on a very small sample. Anyway, you are completely incorrect that Cuban-Americans tend to be Republican. That's certainly true in Florida, where a street in Little Havana was renamed for Ronald Reagan, but up north they tend to be Dems. Robert Menendez, the Cuban-American who is serving out Jon Corzine's Senate term, is a Democrat from Union City, N.J. I don't think one could accurately say that Cuban-Americans in New York and New Jersey are any less anti-Castro than their brethern in Florida, they are just fewer in number and in a more populous region. Conservatives would like to believe they are the only people who are anti-communist, but they are terribly misinformed. The Cubans here are Dems.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> Conservatives would like to believe they are the only people who are anti-communist, but they are terribly misinformed. The Cubans here are Dems.


You say that as though there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat. Now liberal democrats would like to believe that the are anti-communists however their basic philosophy of the role of government in our lives comes right out of Marx's playbook, to wit comments by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) regarding Chavez's rant:


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> You say that as though there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat. Now liberal democrats would like to believe that the are anti-communists however their basic philosophy of the role of government in our lives comes right out of Marx's playbook, to wit comments by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) regarding Chavez's rant:


I fail to see anything Marxist there. What, specifically, comes from Marx?Show me the Marx quote, show me the Harkin quote.

You are living well outside reality if you dispute this statement by Harkin: "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies."

Now, a lot of people hated the U.S. well before Bush. But they certainly hate us a lot more now.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I fail to see anything Marxist there. What, specifically, comes from Marx?Show me the Marx quote, show me the Harkin quote.
> 
> You are living well outside reality if you dispute this statement by Harkin: "Let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies."
> 
> Now, a lot of people hated the U.S. well before Bush. But they certainly hate us a lot more now.


One does not need to quote Marx to adhere to his views. Please read the line regarding billions spent in Iraq when it could have helped people get clean drinking water.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> One does not need to quote Marx to adhere to his views. Please read the line regarding billions spent in Iraq when it could have helped people get clean drinking water.


I called your bluff and we both know it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I called your bluff and we both know it.


Please explain how? I never said he quoted Marx but I'm sure if Marx were alive today he'd give a big thumbs up to the good senators comments.

The notion that there are people in the world who do not have clean drinking water is the fault of George Bush and the billions we spent in Iraq? Once again the capitalists of the world are the reason there are poor people without drinking water. I hit a pot hole this morning on my drive in. If GW hadn't invaded Iraq the funds would have been available to fix that pot hole.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Rubini said:


> Name one.


Indonesia


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

We all know that clean drinking water has nothing to do with Marx. Quote me some Marx that supports your assertion. We both know you can't. We both know you were simply using a loaded image with no basis in reality just to smear someone you disagree with, same as Chavez did in likening Bush to the Prince of Darkness. You are no more substantive than he is, and you stoop to the same level.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> We all know that clean drinking water has nothing to do with Marx. Quote me some Marx that supports your assertion. We both know you can't. We both know you were simply using a loaded image with no basis in reality just to smear someone you disagree with, same as Chavez did in likening Bush to the Prince of Darkness. You are no more substantive than he is, and you stoop to the same level.


I never suggested he was quoting Marx. If you read my post I said that his comments are out of Marx's playbook. Do you deny that Marx's answer to why people in far away lands do not have clean drinking water is because the Capitalists of the world are unfairly using up resources that could be re-distributed to help those people get clean drinking water. His words may have been different but I'm almost certain that the picture he would have painted would have been similar.

By the way you claim that not having clean drinking water has nothing to do with Marx. Neither does the U.S. spending billions in Iraq or anywhere else having to do with it either contrary to what Sen. Harkin said.

I would further argue that it is the implementation of Marxist economic theories an their off shoots (state control of economy, re-distribution policies, central planning) in many 3rd world countries that has resulted in poor living conditions and led to the miserable.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> I said that his comments are out of Marx's playbook.


Cite chapter and verse of said playbook. We both know you are blowing smoke. I'm under the impression that you know no more about Marx than you know about Klingons.


----------



## Rubini (Jun 26, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Indonesia


How so?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> Cite chapter and verse of said playbook. We both know you are blowing smoke. I'm under the impression that you know no more about Marx than you know about Klingons.


First of all I'm not about to go digging through boxes of old books in my closets in order to find a 20 year old copy of Das Kapital. I also happen to know the function of cranial nerve VII however couldn't tell you exactly in which book, its author or page/chapter to find that in off the top of my head. It doesn't make my claim any less valid so your attempt at "gotcha" falls a bit flat.

Second I think anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Marx's economic theories would understand the following:

Marx believed in a concept of surplus product vs. necessary product. Surplus product was the product of surplus labor and was the basis for the accumulation of capital because more was created by man than was necessary for his existance. When this surplus is created a competition starts in which classes formed and that is where the capitalist comes in. He is able to control both labor and production making himself rich by exploiting the worker. Marx was originally referring to this in the context of Europe however on a global scale Marx would argue that the accumulation of wealth by the U.S. can only be achieved through the surplus labor of those in the developing world (this is a common rant amongst many leftists today). The wealth is then horded and spent in such a way that it benefits only the capitalists and further exploits the workers.

So when Tom Harkin states that billions are spent in Iraq when it could be spent bringing clean drinking water to the developing world is an extension of the surplus labor, product, accumulation and exploitation cycle that Marx was referring to.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Harkin is not talking about hording wealth, he is talking about making a choice of spending that wealth -- and not personal wealth, but the collective wealth of the U.S. government (which is achieved through taxes no matter which party is in power) -- to build rather than destroy. That is not a question of economic theory and you know it. What he said has absolutely nothing to do with Marx and you know it.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> Harkin is not talking about hording wealth, he is talking about making a choice of spending that wealth -- and not personal wealth, but the collective wealth of the U.S. government (which is achieved through taxes no matter which party is in power) -- to build rather than destroy. That is not a question of economic theory and you know it. What he said has absolutely nothing to do with Marx and you know it.


Marx would argue that we spent the wealth in war in order to accumulate more wealth. "Accumulation for the sake of accumulation" as Marx says. Furthermore Marx would argue that the accumulation of personal wealth robs the state of the wealth necessary for its redistribution policies. I don't think Marx made much of a distinction at that time between personal vs. state wealth as they were very intertwined. He would view a capitalist state in much the way way as a capitalist individual.

As to spending our wealth it should serve our interests. We give plenty of money to the developing world. I would argue often times too much without any questions asked. We are by and far the largest donor to African nations for a variety of healthcare and economic development initiatives. During the tsumani of 2004 the U.S. through government aid, aid in kind in the form of heavy lift capacity and the U.S. Navy and over $1 billion donated from private citizens far outstripped the rest of the world, as it should given our wealth. The problem in the developing world is not a matter of inputs (as liberals see all problems). Its that the aid is gobbled up by dictators and the economic models the U.N. uses to implement its initiatives is based on socialist theory and therefore the capital does not accumulate and become sustainable.

Tom Harkin needs to shut the hell up and think the next time he decides to open his mouth regarding the money we have spent in Iraq given that he voted for the war back in 2002.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> Marx would argue that we spent the wealth in war in order to accumulate more wealth.


With the billions we spend to destroy a country and then the billions we spend to rebuild that country, I doubt even Marx would argue that the collective "we" accumulate anything as a result of this war, unless by "we" you mean shareholders in a few companies, especially the recipients of no-bid contracts.

The waste of our gifts to developing countries certainly is not limited to dictators stealing it -- there's certainly been a lot of our rebuilding money in Iraq going for things other than rebuilding.

A lot of people voted for the war. Of course they did so trusting the information our government provided them. Which, as we now know, was not entirely accurate. If I had voted for something based on misleading information, I certainly would feel zero allegiance to the persons who provided that misleading information, and I would consider it not just my right but my patriotic duty to now speak out against it.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Back to Cuba, if I may.

There's always been a problem as to what to do with deposed dictators and despots. If you put them on trial, you get lengthy, drawn-out affairs like Saddam's current show. It merely adds to the frustration. But you can't just bump 'em off, though they may richly deserve it. It would set a poor example.

Another problem is the state of Italian-American gangsterdom. This new generation is losing ground - rapidly - to gangs of all sorts of ethnic descriptions, "The Sopranos" notwithstanding.

So: 

As soon as Castro croaks, Cuba becomes a safe haven for ex-dictators. They are quarantined there, unable to leave, and forced to take jobs such as maitre d' in the lovely new casino/hotels the Mafia will open. Gambling, gangsters, dictators bringing the wine list.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Worse than Cuba?*



Rubini said:


> Name one.


Right now:
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Pakistan
China

Very recently:
El Salvador
Panama
Guatemala
Dominican Republic


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> As soon as Castro croaks, Cuba becomes a safe haven for ex-dictators. They are quarantined there, unable to leave, and forced to take jobs such as maitre d' in the lovely new casino/hotels the Mafia will open. Gambling, gangsters, dictators bringing the wine list.


Are you suggesting that as my wife and I have dinner in a Hyman Roth owned hotel in Havana Hugo Chavez may bring a flaming banana diaquari to my table followed by the first course brought in by Charles Taylor?


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Are you suggesting that as my wife and I have dinner in a Hyman Roth owned hotel in Havana Hugo Chavez may bring a flaming banana diaquari to my table followed by the first course brought in by Charles Taylor?


And in a just and sane world, Saddam would be manning the roulette wheel.

Glad you see you entering into the spirit of the thing.

Maybe ex-Presidents should go there as well.


----------



## Borat (Sep 23, 2006)

Chuck Franke said:


> Hmmm... now why would you keep a small island nation that once tried to park a few megatons worth of medium range ballistic missiles a short swim from Florida under your thumb...
> 
> thinking
> thinking
> Wait, don't tell me, I'll get there


*Well, you could hug them...*

* You could buy them flowers...*










* You could embrace them...

You could dress in their pajamas...
*










* You could share jokes with them...

*

*That is, unless some megaton-missles pointed at the US and A are more evil than others!
**

**'Wow wow wee waa!' *


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Borat said:


> *That is, unless some megaton-missles pointed at the US and A are more evil than others!*


So where is the "US" and the "A" located? Are they close to each other?


----------



## Rubini (Jun 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Right now:
> Saudi Arabia
> Egypt
> Pakistan
> ...


All of those countries in the Middle East serve the United States a strategic purpose in our struggle against Jihadism. Every last one of them. In a war, you make alliances (could we have beaten Hitler without Stalin? Tragically, probably not)

And none of those countries in the Middle East have been ruled by the same man since 1959, not a single one.

I will concede to you that the government of China is rotten to its commie core. However, China is evolving and growing economically, we can hope that it will change socially and politically as well as the middle class grows. There is a vast difference between the China of today and the China of Mao's sixties. The crucial difference between the Cuba of today and the Cuba of the sixties is that things have gotten much, much worse, the country has gotten much, much poorer.

Oh boy. I have spent time in all of those places on your "very recently" list, except Panama. All of those places, including El Salvador, are vastly freer countries today than Cuba.

In Cuba, the members of this forum would be considered effete, capitalistic and counter-revolutionary. They would be relieved of their Saville Row-aspiring suits, and (for the trads) their pink BB OCBDs, Bill's (which cost more money than a Cuban sees in a year) and authentic regimental repp ties and sent out to cut sugar cane and be schooled in revolutionary "thought."

By the way, you forgot Chile.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Rubini said:


> All of those countries in the Middle East serve the United States a strategic purpose in our struggle against Jihadism. Every last one of them. In a war, you make alliances (could we have beaten Hitler without Stalin? Tragically, probably not)


True, but that wasn't your question. Your question was to name a country that the United States "deals with" that is worse than Cuba. All of the countries that I named are, or have been in the recent past.



Rubini said:


> And none of those countries in the Middle East have been ruled by the same man since 1959, not a single one.


True, but of questionable relevance. How long has the same family ruled Saudi Arabia? How long did Pahlavi rule Iran (I'm getting to that). How long since anyone in China has had a choice of ruler?



Rubini said:


> I will concede to you that the government of China is rotten to its commie core. However, China is evolving and growing economically, we can hope that it will change socially and politically as well as the middle class grows. There is a vast difference between the China of today and the China of Mao's sixties. The crucial difference between the Cuba of today and the Cuba of the sixties is that things have gotten much, much worse, the country has gotten much, much poorer.


There are a couple of key differences here. First, neither China nor any other country that you can list has been subjected to economic warfare by the most powerful country in the world for almost fifty years. Second, unless you claim that contact with the United States has had nothing to do with the social and economic changes in China, discussing China actually supports the argument that isolating Cuba has been counterproductive.



Rubini said:


> Oh boy. I have spent time in all of those places on your "very recently" list, except Panama. All of those places, including El Salvador, are vastly freer countries today than Cuba.
> 
> In Cuba, the members of this forum would be considered effete, capitalistic and counter-revolutionary. They would be relieved of their Saville Row-aspiring suits, and (for the trads) their pink BB OCBDs, Bill's (which cost more money than a Cuban sees in a year) and authentic regimental repp ties and sent out to cut sugar cane and be schooled in revolutionary "thought."
> 
> By the way, you forgot Chile.


You're right. I meant to include our erstwhile friends Chile, Argentina, Iran, and Iraq.


----------



## Rubini (Jun 26, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> True, but that wasn't your question. Your question was to name a country that the United States "deals with" that is worse than Cuba. All of the countries that I named are, or have been in the recent past.


None of those countries have nationalized U.S. property, which is what provoked the Kennedy administration to embargo Cuba.

The international press, largely sympathetic to Castro ("The Lion in Winter" according to Time), does not report on human rights violations in Cuba, so far-left ideologues can bask in the luxury of pretending that said violations don't happen; the left did the same regarding the atrocities of Stalin and Mao. I can assure you that serious human rights violations do occur in Cuba, on a daily basis. Read Armando Valladares' "Against All Hope" ("Contra Toda Esperanza" if you read Spanish) and you will see that Cuba is far from the benevolent dictatorship that Castro presents it as. I know personally a least two former political prisoners in Castro's Cuba, and they can, and have, vouched for the veracity of every word in Valladares book, so save yourself the trouble of attempting to discredit Valladares before you even bother to read him.

I asked another poster to name some countries worse than Castro's Cuba that we deal with, only because said poster asserted that we dealt with worse regimes than Castro's. By what scale can you possibly measure that, that Regime X is "worse" than Regime Y? It's impossible. But if it were possible...don't assume that Castro wouldn't win the contest. He just might surprise you.

I urge you to read Valladares' book.

Respectfully,
R


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rubini said:


> they can, and have, vouched for the veracity of every word in Valladares book


That's a heck of a lot of vouching. A person would have to be omniscient to vouch for that much. What you probably mean is that his general viewpoint matches theirs, therefore they accept everything he wrote as fact whether they can verify it or not.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> discussing China actually supports the argument that isolating Cuba has been counterproductive.


Counterproductive to whom? To us? Certainly not. How would our lives be substantially better if Cuba were allowed to prosper through the normalization of relations? China is a country that cannot be ignored. We have to be drawn close to it because failure to do so will create a vacuum into which another power could tap its potential. I certainly feel for the poor souls in Castro's jails and the wretched existance of its citizens in general. The fact that many risk there lives over and over again to get off that island speaks louder than anything else that it is no island paradise as long as Castro and his cronies are in charge. When the Soviet Union was intact it was a strategic area however now that it is on its own its quite irrelavent.


----------



## Rubini (Jun 26, 2006)

crs said:


> That's a heck of a lot of vouching. A person would have to be omniscient to vouch for that much. What you probably mean is that his general viewpoint matches theirs, therefore they accept everything he wrote as fact whether they can verify it or not.


What I mean is that they can vouch that the practices and incidents inventoried by Valladares actually took place. These include: beatings often resulting in deaths; executions by firing squad; internment of prisoners stark naked for weeks at a time in 3 X 6 cells, with no toilet facilities, called "gavetas"; the presence of political prisoners who were children as young as twelve years old...it gets worse. Valladares' book is a worthy, and challenging read.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Rubini said:


> How so?


Ever hear of East Timor? What has Castro done to compete with that?


----------

