188 Nations Condemn US Embargo Against Cuba

cyberhog

(Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly for the 22nd time to condemn the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba, whose foreign minister said the American policy in place since 1959 was barbaric and amounted to genocide.

There were 188 votes for the non-binding resolution, entitled "Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba," in the 193-nation General Assembly.

The only country that joined the United States in voting against the resolution was Israel.

...

"The human damages caused by the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States are incalculable," Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez told the assembly.

"It provokes hardships and is a mass, flagrant and systematic violation of human rights," he said. "The fact that 53 years later the same policy still prevails is something extraordinary and barbaric."

He added that the economic damage to Cuba amounted to $1.126 trillion and that the embargo "has been classified as an act of genocide" under the Geneva Convention of 1948.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/29/us-cuba-un-idUSBRE99S10Q20131029

So much for the the US being the "leader of the free world", only the apartheid state of Israel follows its lead.

Brian?

The embargo must be maintained to combat the flagrant aggression Cuba has showed to the USA.

Look at the waves of attacks repelled from Florida every day.

Amerika

One has to wonder why so many countries concern themselves that American businesses are limited from conducting business with Cuban interests, even though the United States remains the 5th largest exporter to Cuba (although Cuba has to pay cash for all imports as extending credit to Cuba is not allowed). Are they up in arms because we won’t give Cuba a line of credit? Perhaps these countries, rather than running to the UN, should just loan Cuba money to pay for their goods in cash.

cyberhog

One has to wonder why the US is still clinging to a failed policy?

If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth.

Economic sanctions rarely work. Trade and investment sanctions against Burma, Iran, and North Korea have failed to change the behavior of any of those oppressive regimes; sanctions have only deepened the deprivation of the very people we are trying to help. Our research at the Cato Institute confirms that trade and globalization till the soil for democracy. Nations open to trade are more likely to be democracies where human rights are respected.

http://www.cato.org/publications/speeches/four-decades-failure-us-embargo-against-cuba

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cyberhog

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is not a legitimate reason to keep an embargo on Cuba but it does provide another good reason for the US to reform its undemocratic electoral system.

There is clearly no good reason for the embargo to continue so the international community is right to condemn it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jonny7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wait, I've got it!

how about the Cubans switch to a functioning economic system, hold elections (which we all believe in I take it), release the journalists and political opposition from prison and I am pretty sure the embargo will be lifted

Oh wait, that might mean the ruling family which has outlasted 10 US presidents might not stay in power.. well that's the whole point of the current system.. so scratch that

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Wait, I've got it!

how about the Cubans switch to a functioning economic system, hold elections (which we all believe in I take it), release the journalists and political opposition from prison and I am pretty sure the embargo will be lifted

Oh wait, that might mean the ruling family which has outlasted 10 US presidents might not stay in power.. well that's the whole point of the current system.. so scratch that

As a disclaimer, I would like to state that I do not support the government of Cuba, but the people.

It is a bit rich to say that Cuba needs a functioning economic system. The last time i checked the economic system of the western world doesn't seem to be in the best of shape, not to mention the fact that well known economic academics believe in the future it could be headed for total collapse. Cubas economic system has never been given a real chance because of the economic sanctions placed upon it, and this is precisely the aim of sanctions. Their system is not againt global trade, or anything of that matter, but they cannot perform globally because of the economic sanctions placed upon them, but everyone seems to blame 'socialism' for this, completely ignoring the fact that the sanctions are doing exactly what they are meant to do, disrupt their economy and not allow it to compete.

To say though that if they joined our economic brotherhood, and held elections, well then the sanctions would be lifted is a bit naive. This implies that the US's main concern with Cuba is in relation to 'liberty' and 'democracy' and beacause Cuba does not have these, well then they will be placed under economic sanctions. If this is the case, then why do the US trade freely with governments that are far more oppressive than that of Cuba, where no sanctions are present, if they care about these values. Coincidently enough, the current lot running Cuba are a direct result of US foreign policy, where they overthrew the democratically elected president of Cuba, and replaced him with the brutal dictator Batista setting the way for Castro and his legacy to be formed.

188 nations condemn the US embargo because it is an act of war. According to US Defence policy, if any nation places the US under economic sanctions, this would be deemed as economic warfare and therefore an act of war and the response could involve nuclear weapons. I really do love US foreign policy 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

clairefontaine

esteve wrote: »

As a disclaimer, I would like to state that I do not support the government of Cuba, but the people.

It is a bit rich to say that Cuba needs a functioning economic system. The last time i checked the economic system of the western world doesn't seem to be in the best of shape, not to mention the fact that well known economic academics believe in the future it could be headed for total collapse. Cubas economic system has never been given a real chance because of the economic sanctions placed upon it, and this is precisely the aim of sanctions. Their system is not againt global trade, or anything of that matter, but they cannot perform globally because of the economic sanctions placed upon them, but everyone seems to blame 'socialism' for this, completely ignoring the fact that the sanctions are doing exactly what they are meant to do, disrupt their economy and not allow it to compete.

To say though that if they joined our economic brotherhood, and held elections, well then the sanctions would be lifted is a bit naive. This implies that the US's main concern with Cuba is in relation to 'liberty' and 'democracy' and beacause Cuba does not have these, well then they will be placed under economic sanctions. If this is the case, then why do the US trade freely with governments that are far more oppressive than that of Cuba, where no sanctions are present, if they care about these values. Coincidently enough, the current lot running Cuba are a direct result of US foreign policy, where they overthrew the democratically elected president of Cuba, and replaced him with the brutal dictator Batista setting the way for Castro and his legacy to be formed.

188 nations condemn the US embargo because it is an act of war. According to US Defence policy, if any nation places the US under economic sanctions, this would be deemed as economic warfare and therefore an act of war and the response could involve nuclear weapons. I really do love US foreign policy 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

It's historical memory. Not just the missile crisis, but that there are still surviving Cubans in the US and their kids and grandchildren who had their land and businesses stolen from Castro. Maybe had family members killed by his regime too.

They are not about to let it go.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

As a disclaimer, I would like to state that I do not support the government of Cuba, but the people.

If the embargo were to drop tomorrow, do you think the Cuban people would gain any say in the running of their country or the future of their children?

Whether or not we agree with the embargo - it's not the root cause.

It is a bit rich to say that Cuba needs a functioning economic system.

Their current economic system is broken, few countries would adopt it for anything else but stubborn idealistic reasons

The last time i checked the economic system of the western world doesn't seem to be in the best of shape, not to mention the fact that well known economic academics believe in the future it could be headed for total collapse.

Granted, but there's a fair difference between Zambia and Denmark.

Cubas economic system has never been given a real chance because of the economic sanctions placed upon it

This is really the endless excuse of the Marxist-Leninist state system - "Just needs time" - most have had decades of time and failed dreadfully, to be replaced by a working economic system that is significantly better

In Russia, they even adopted a capitalist model to "kick-start" their collectivised economy - much like Cuba did during the "special period" when Moscow stopped supporting their economy and it went into free-fall

Again belief vs common sense, looking back at it, the dogmatic blinkered view is astonishing

To say though that if they joined our economic brotherhood, and held elections, well then the sanctions would be lifted is a bit naive.

There is no "them and us".

It's a country that would benefit hugely if it did what we take for granted, held free and fair elections, reformed the economic system, and stopped being a model for the next Tropico game

As a bonus the embargo would also drop very quickly (Gadaffi did a hell of a lot less in 2005 and had sanctions lifted)

This implies that the US's main concern with Cuba is in relation to 'liberty' and 'democracy' and beacause Cuba does not have these, well then they will be placed under economic sanctions.

The US embargo is rooted in historical and ideological reasons, whether or not you or I agree on it, like I said, it's not the underlying cause - but it certainly is a handy scapegoat

188 nations condemn the US embargo because it is an act of war. According to US Defence policy, if any nation places the US under economic sanctions, this would be deemed as economic warfare and therefore an act of war and the response could involve nuclear weapons. I really do love US foreign policy 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

I would trust the economic effects of the embargo to instigate positive change in Cuba faster than I'd trust the Castro's at this stage.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

If the embargo were to drop tomorrow, do you think the Cuban people would gain any say in the running of their country or the future of their children?

Possibly yes, possibly no, but the fact is that the US is committing economic war against Cuba, and as is always the case in war, the biggest sufferers are the ordinary decent poeple, not the leaders.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Granted, but there's a fair difference between Zambia and Denmark.

No real reason to compare these two. Africa as a continent has been pillaged for centuries. Even if Zambia employed the most forward thinking 'free' market policies, it will take decades/centuries for it to be on the same playing field as Denmark.

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is really the endless excuse of the Marxist-Leninist state system - "Just needs time" - most have had decades of time and failed dreadfully, to be replaced by a "Western" economic system that is significantly better

I am sorry I am not making excuses here and I am no socialist or communist, I am just someone who likes facts. I was speaking only about Cuba, and i dont understand how you can fairly assess its economic performance when it has been placed under some of the longest and most severe economic sanctions ever. The US economy nearly fell off a cliff a few years ago, it goes through bubble after bubble and may, as academics are forecasting, fail entirely, and this is without it being under any sanctions. Imagine the US was placed under sever economic sanctions and its economy was broken, would this be because its economic system isnt working, or because the sanctions are working. To ignore the effect the sanctions have on the performance of the Cuban economy is ignorant at best.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would trust the economic effects of the embargo to instigate positive change in Cuba faster than I'd trust the Castro's at this stage.

Wow, so until Cuba do as we say, the sanctions should continue. The sanctions have been there for decades, im still waiting to see this positive change as are 188 nations on this planet. Do you not think that after all this time, that maybe, just maybe, there may be a better way.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

No real reason to compare these two. Africa as a continent has been pillaged for centuries. Even if Zambia employed the most forward thinking 'free' market policies, it will take decades/centuries for it to be on the same playing field as Denmark.

Precisely, the economic system of the "Western world" is diverse, but generally it works. Cuba's model doesn't work, full stop. If you want me to go further into this I will.

I am sorry I am not making excuses here and I am no socialist or communist, I am just someone who likes facts. I was speaking only about Cuba, and i dont understand how you can fairly assess its economic performance when it has been placed under some of the longest and most severe economic sanctions ever. The US economy nearly fell off a cliff a few years ago, it goes through bubble after bubble and may, as academics are forecasting, fail entirely, and this is without it being under any sanctions. Imagine the US was placed under sever economic sanctions and its economy was broken, would this be because its economic system isnt working, or because the sanctions are working. To ignore the effect the sanctions have on the performance of the Cuban economy is ignorant at best.

I am judging Cuba on it's economic system, which is relative faulty with or without sanctions.

Are any of the 188 countries using the same economic model? I doubt it and there's a reason for that.

Wow, so until Cuba do as we say, the sanctions should continue. The sanctions have been there for decades, im still waiting to see this positive change as are 188 nations on this planet. Do you not think that after all this time, that maybe, just maybe, there may be a better way.

Ironically by lifting the blockage and doing business with Cuba, the US would then be supporting a dictatorship according to much of the logic I see bandied about here

Anyway, the US, with a snap of it's fingers can improve the lives of Cubans, but only to a certain degree and only economically.

Raul can change everything.

The first is a band-aid, the latter is a realistic solution.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Precisely, the economic system of the "Western world" is diverse, but generally it works. Cuba's model doesn't work, full stop. If you want me to go further into this I will.

Im sorry i don really get your point here. I was simply saying it makes no sense to compare Zambia to Denmark, nor does it to categorically state that Cubas model doesnt work just cos it doesnt work, when it is placed under the most severe and long lasting sanctions ever. I will say though, Cubas model in my opinion with or without sanctions, would not be an outstanding success. I think what is more important is to look at what parts are successful i.e. literacy, health, education. The US could learn a thing or two there.

I also think there are many people in the Western World who are not entirely happy about our own economic system.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I am judging Cuba on it's economic system, which is relative faulty with or without sanctions.

Difficult to say really, you can speculate but we will never know.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Ironically by lifting the blockage and doing business with Cuba, the US would then be supporting a dictatorship according to much of the logic I see bandied about here

Not really true. People simply bring this point up, and rightly so, because the US pick and choose what dictator they want to support, what people they want to oppress. I dont support dictators, nor do i support any country funding and backing dicatators, but I dont understand, why the US gets to pick and choose this and expect us not to be critical.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Anyway, the US, with a snap of it's fingers can improve the lives of Cubans, but only to a certain degree and only economically.

Raul can change everything.

The first is a band-aid, the latter is a realistic solution.

This is bit hopeful, not really based on any facts. Im sure Libyans were told the same.

I do think though, and as you say, it lies with Raul. 188 nations, regardless of their own ecnomic system, are fed up with how the US are dealing with Cuba.

cyberhog

Obama Makes Tepid Call for Change in US Policy on Cuba

HAVANA TIMES — Without mentioning any specifics US President Barack Obama called Friday for a revision of US policies towards Cuba.

In an address to a fundraiser in Miami Obama said, “We have to be creative and we have to be thoughtful and we have to continue to update our policies.”

...

President Obama added: “Keep in mind that when Castro came to power I was just born, so the notion that the same policies that we put in place in 1961 would somehow still be as effective as they are today in the age of the Internet, Google and world travel doesn’t make sense.”

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=99944

MonaPizza

Amerika wrote: »

One has to wonder why so many countries concern themselves that American businesses are limited from conducting business with Cuban interests, even though the United States remains the 5th largest exporter to Cuba (although Cuba has to pay cash for all imports as extending credit to Cuba is not allowed). Are they up in arms because we won’t give Cuba a line of credit? Perhaps these countries, rather than running to the UN, should just loan Cuba money to pay for their goods in cash.

But why the restrictions?
Why does the US prevent its citizens from travelling to Cuba?
Why is it illegal to smoke a Havana cigar in the US?
Talk about snivelling bitchiness. The US tried to kill Castro over the course of 10 presidents and failed. Why were you numpties trying in the first place? To "free" people or some such crap?

According to the whinging bitches is Washington you're not allowed to do business with Iran either. Why? Another example of the snivellers throwing their rattle out of the pram because they can't come the heavy.
The US owes billions in war reparations to Vietnam and as yet hasn't paid a bean. Sore losers? Most definitely. Hypocrites? No question.

Bitching about Cuba, please.

"We're a shining light on a hill (or some crap) but when we blow the toggs out of your country and get it all wrong we'll be damned if we're going to admit a mistake let alone say sorry."

ChicagoJoe

For decades a large majority of Americans have wanted to establish normal relations with Cuba, " to heck with it, let's try and get along with the sons of b!tches " as the average American blue collar guy would say !!! The US is entirely isolated in the world with the embargo, at the UN it can only get support from Israel of course and a few Pacific island states looking for a hand out from Uncle Sam. Time for the embargo to end.

Amerika

MonaPizza wrote: »

But why the restrictions?
Why does the US prevent its citizens from travelling to Cuba?
Why is it illegal to smoke a Havana cigar in the US?
Talk about snivelling bitchiness. The US tried to kill Castro over the course of 10 presidents and failed. Why were you numpties trying in the first place? To "free" people or some such crap?

According to the whinging bitches is Washington you're not allowed to do business with Iran either. Why? Another example of the snivellers throwing their rattle out of the pram because they can't come the heavy.
The US owes billions in war reparations to Vietnam and as yet hasn't paid a bean. Sore losers? Most definitely. Hypocrites? No question.

Bitching about Cuba, please.

"We're a shining light on a hill (or some crap) but when we blow the toggs out of your country and get it all wrong we'll be damned if we're going to admit a mistake let alone say sorry."

Travel restrictions have eased. In 2011, 400,000 US citizens visited Cuba, making us the second-largest source of foreign visitors (after Canada). Also, US citizens can buy tickets to visit Cuba through Mexico, Canada, or any another country. If a US citizen really wants to visit Cuba they can find a way to legally do it. And cigars aren’t the only Cuban product banned in the US, they just seem to be representative of the embargo. And if a US citizen just can’t live without the sweet taste of a Cuban cigar, a quick trip to Mexico or Canada where they are legal can cure the fix (perhaps their cigars were something special years ago, but nothing special these days IMO).

But Cuba permitted the Soviets to construct nuclear missile basses capable of striking the US, and the world never came closer to nuclear war because of it. Has Cuba changed? Do we want to ignore history only to repeat it? And do we really want to give Cuba an economic lifeline through tourism and cigars?

And from your posts you seem to be against injustice. Why wouldn’t you be calling for Cuba to install a democratic government and return the private property that was seized, rather than simply castigating the US?

clairefontaine

MonaPizza wrote: »

But why the restrictions?
Why does the US prevent its citizens from travelling to Cuba?
Why is it illegal to smoke a Havana cigar in the US?
Talk about snivelling bitchiness. The US tried to kill Castro over the course of 10 presidents and failed. Why were you numpties trying in the first place? To "free" people or some such crap?

According to the whinging bitches is Washington you're not allowed to do business with Iran either. Why? Another example of the snivellers throwing their rattle out of the pram because they can't come the heavy.
The US owes billions in war reparations to Vietnam and as yet hasn't paid a bean. Sore losers? Most definitely. Hypocrites? No question.

Bitching about Cuba, please.

"We're a shining light on a hill (or some crap) but when we blow the toggs out of your country and get it all wrong we'll be damned if we're going to admit a mistake let alone say sorry."

It's probably because there are still a lot of Cubans around who has property stolen rom hem by Castro or family killed by Guevara, that might have something to do with the embargo.

Maybe Castro should repay all the citizens he stole from, he stole their property, he stole their heritage, and he stole their nation.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

US citizens can buy tickets to visit Cuba through Mexico, Canada, or any another country.

They can but they'd be breaking US law.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

They can but they'd be breaking US law.

Breaking the law like jaywalking breaking the law or breaking the law like grand theft?

bumper234

Amerika wrote: »

Travel restrictions have eased. In 2011, 400,000 US citizens visited Cuba, making us the second-largest source of foreign visitors (after Canada). Also, US citizens can buy tickets to visit Cuba through Mexico, Canada, or any another country. If a US citizen really wants to visit Cuba they can find a way to legally do it. And cigars aren’t the only Cuban product banned in the US, they just seem to be representative of the embargo. And if a US citizen just can’t live without the sweet taste of a Cuban cigar, a quick trip to Mexico or Canada where they are legal can cure the fix (perhaps their cigars were something special years ago, but nothing special these days IMO).

But Cuba permitted the Soviets to construct nuclear missile basses capable of striking the US, and the world never came closer to nuclear war because of it. Has Cuba changed? Do we want to ignore history only to repeat it? And do we really want to give Cuba an economic lifeline through tourism and cigars?

And from your posts you seem to be against injustice. Why wouldn’t you be calling for Cuba to install a democratic government and return the private property that was seized, rather than simply castigating the US?

But it's ok for America to illegally kidnap people from their countries and ship them off to Cuba where they hold them for a decade without trial. And then you have the stones to preach about injustice? :rolleyes:

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

They can but they'd be breaking US law.

I don't believe that is correct. I think they can travel to Cuba, just not buy anything there.

Amerika

bumper234 wrote: »

But it's ok for America to illegally kidnap people from their countries and ship them off to Cuba where they hold them for a decade without trial. And then you have the stones to preach about injustice? :rolleyes:

"Illegally kidnap people from their countries"

I don't think you quite have that right. These are individuals that were either captured in battle with the US or our allies, or were involved with terrorism, right?

bumper234

Amerika wrote: »

"Illegally kidnap people from their countries"

I don't think you quite have that right. These are individuals that were either captured in battle with the US or our allies, or were involved with terrorism, right?

yeah sure....you keep telling yourself that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472804/WikiLeaks-children-among-the-innocent-captured-and-sent-to-Guantanamo.html

An illiterate farmhand and wood-gatherer who did not even know his own age was among the 150 innocent people incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay, secret documents disclose.

Mohammed Nasim, a religious man with a wife and three children, was arrested because his name sounded “similar” to that of a Taliban scout overheard on a radio intercept giving information about US troop movements.Mr Nasim was sent to Guantánamo along with scores of other innocent farmers, rug sellers, cooks, and taxi drivers rounded up as the US and Northern Alliance forces swept through Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Others were sold to the Americans by opportunistic warlords in return for thousands of dollars.

clairefontaine

bumper234 wrote: »

yeah sure....you keep telling yourself that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472804/WikiLeaks-children-among-the-innocent-captured-and-sent-to-Guantanamo.html

An illiterate farmhand and wood-gatherer who did not even know his own age was among the 150 innocent people incarcerated in Guantánamo Bay, secret documents disclose.

Mohammed Nasim, a religious man with a wife and three children, was arrested because his name sounded “similar” to that of a Taliban scout overheard on a radio intercept giving information about US troop movements.Mr Nasim was sent to Guantánamo along with scores of other innocent farmers, rug sellers, cooks, and taxi drivers rounded up as the US and Northern Alliance forces swept through Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Others were sold to the Americans by opportunistic warlords in return for thousands of dollars.

This happens during wartime. My great grandfather had alot of land in British Guyana and the British government took it during during WW2 because he had German last name, although was not himself German, and forced the family to evacuate to to the islands. He never got the land back btw.

War is a land grab, usually to benefit the war lenders. The US is fighting wars by proxy for Saudi, IMO. It's very sinister indeed.

bumper234

clairefontaine wrote: »

This happens during wartime. My great grandfather had alot of land in British Guyana and the British government took it during during WW2 because he had German last name, although was not himself German, and forced the family to evacuate to to the islands. He never got the land back btw.

War is a land grab, usually to benefit the war lenders. The US is fighting wars by proxy for Saudi, IMO. It's very sinister indeed.

Taking someones land is one thing, rounding them up and shipping them off to prisons in a foreign land.....didn't a wee man named Hitler do that once?

clairefontaine

bumper234 wrote: »

Taking someones land is one thing, rounding them up and shipping them off to prisons in a foreign land.....didn't a wee man named Hitler do that once?

He rounded them up and gassed them on their own land. These were innocent people, not terror suspects.

Gitmo is a paradox, because they'd actually be more effective going through the main system in US courts. Obviously they'd get the death penalty too.

The thing is in a US prison, they might actually get killed by other prisoners. Raped for sure. And they could see thei koran used as toilet paper.

On the other hand there is a lot of Islam radicalisation in US prisons, so they might be afraid of that too.

bumper234

clairefontaine wrote: »

He rounded them up and gassed them on their own land. These were innocent people, not terror suspects.

Gitmo is a paradox, because they'd actually be more effective going through the main system in US courts. Obviously they'd get the death penalty too.

The thing is in a US prison, they might actually get killed by other prisoners. Raped for sure. And they could see thei koran used as toilet paper.

On the other hand there is a lot of Islam radicalisation in US prisons, so they might be afraid of that too.

What may or may not happen is beside the point, there is still the fact that people who have been PROVEN innocent are in Guantanamo. I suppose it's one way for the US to help the Cuban economy:rolleyes:

SamHarris

esteve wrote: »

Not really true. People simply bring this point up, and rightly so, because the US pick and choose what dictator they want to support, what people they want to oppress. I dont support dictators, nor do i support any country funding and backing dicatators, but I dont understand, why the US gets to pick and choose this and expect us not to be critical.

For the record I think the sanctions should be dropped, for the same reasons Johnny7 gave. But I disagree with peoples assertions that there is little contemporary or historical reasons for the position - there are many. The current regime of the island outright accepted near annihilation to help threaten US cities with destruction is alone enough to justify at least extreme caution on the US' part towards the state.

Many people on this forum, and throughout the media, "pick and choose" what dictators the US should and should not support, ignore or put massive pressure on. Ignore, directly support, directly attack, only use words, say nothing - it is routinely the same political quarter that is most stridently critical of all responses. If individuals cannot hold a common policy in their own imagination - even though in theory all they have to be motivated by his/her morality whereas a country must take into account thousands of factors when formulating policy - I don't know why it even crosses peoples minds that the US should have a "common policy" dealing with each and every autocratic government.

I don't think I'd be alone in seeing that if Cuba were under a right-wing, pro-business government, but was similarly oppressive towards dissenting voices (with thousands of political prisoners) and the US' policy was one of normal engagement it would be people of the exact same political persuasion that are most critical of the US' current position that would be critical of that hypothetical one. More died with this regime merely coming to power than under Pinochet's government, people's attitude towards both speaks volumes of how much of people's criticism of US policy stems from ideology and not some basic moral code - even when they are not aware of it.

The big questions peoples opinion (nearly always on from the left) towards US policy on Cuba always raises for me is - why is the US the only state expected to place it's peoples ideals above it's national interest? Why is more expected of the US in this regard than even our own country from many people (most people know nothing about our governments economic policy towards any number of repressive regimes, and care less). Why is it people who scoff the most at the idea of the US being some kind of world police that most bemoan them not acting like one?

Unfortunately the very subject of US' foreign policy (or indeed it's people and society), towards pretty much everything, has become so tied to wider ideology for most people there is very rarely a completely rational discussion of it in either or increasingly politicized media, on forums or even in pub conversations.

Rant. Over.

SamHarris

bumper234 wrote: »

But it's ok for America to illegally kidnap people from their countries and ship them off to Cuba where they hold them for a decade without trial. And then you have the stones to preach about injustice? :rolleyes:

So your position is that the US having 200 prisoners in Gitmo prevents it's citizens bringing up injustice? You probably should be more aware of Ireland own history of detention without trial, then.

I guess it's your position to that Cubans, Iranians, Afghans or Pakistanis also can't legitimately complain about it, then?

The lack of self awareness of those most critical of the US (or even Americans, who are often uniquely guilty for past and present crimes for those whom guilt serves their political purpose) really makes the strident self righteousness even harder to swallow.

bumper234

SamHarris wrote: »

So your position is that the US having 200 prisoners in Gitmo prevents it's citizens bringing up injustice? You probably should be more aware of Ireland own history of detention without trial, then.

I guess it's your position to that Cubans, Iranians, Afghans or Pakistanis also can't legitimately complain about it, then?

The lack of self awareness of those most critical of the US (or even American's, who are often uniquely guilty for past and present crimes for those whom guilt serves their political purpose) really makes the strident self righteousness even harder to swallow.

I'm saying that it's hard for people to listen to America preach about human rights and civil liberties and such when every couple of weeks another story comes out about America ****ting on peoples human rights and civil liberties.

SamHarris

bumper234 wrote: »

I'm saying that it's hard for people to listen to America preach about human rights and civil liberties and such when every couple of weeks another story comes out about America ****ting on peoples human rights and civil liberties.

So the "you" in the comment I quoted was the US government then?

bumper234

SamHarris wrote: »

So the "you" in the comment I quoted was the US government then?

No I was talking to Amerika (the poster)

esteve

SamHarris wrote: »

For the record I think the sanctions should be dropped, for the same reasons Johnny7 gave. But I disagree with peoples assertions that there is little contemporary or historical reasons for the position - there are many. The current regime of the island outright accepted near annihilation to help threaten US cities with destruction is alone enough to justify at least extreme caution on the US' part towards the state.

Many people on this forum, and throughout the media, "pick and choose" what dictators the US should and should not support, ignore or put massive pressure on. Ignore, directly support, directly attack, only use words, say nothing - it is routinely the same political quarter that is most stridently critical of all responses. If individuals cannot hold a common policy in their own imagination - even though in theory all they have to be motivated by his/her morality whereas a country must take into account thousands of factors when formulating policy - I don't know why it even crosses peoples minds that the US should have a "common policy" dealing with each and every autocratic government.

I don't think I'd be alone in seeing that if Cuba were under a right-wing, pro-business government, but was similarly oppressive towards dissenting voices (with thousands of political prisoners) and the US' policy was one of normal engagement it would be people of the exact same political persuasion that are most critical of the US' current position that would be critical of that hypothetical one. More died with this regime merely coming to power than under Pinochet's government, people's attitude towards both speaks volumes of how much of people's criticism of US policy stems from ideology and not some basic moral code - even when they are not aware of it.

The big questions peoples opinion (nearly always on from the left) towards US policy on Cuba always raises for me is - why is the US the only state expected to place it's peoples ideals above it's national interest? Why is more expected of the US in this regard than even our own country from many people (most people know nothing about our governments economic policy towards any number of repressive regimes, and care less). Why is it people who scoff the most at the idea of the US being some kind of world police that most bemoan them not acting like one?

Unfortunately the very subject of US' foreign policy (or indeed it's people and society), towards pretty much everything, has become so tied to wider ideology for most people there is very rarely a completely rational discussion of it in either or increasingly politicized media, on forums or even in pub conversations.

Rant. Over.

Good rant, and i dont really know where to start but let me categorically state i am not left wing, nor am i right wing. My opinion is based on studying the facts.

I agree it was absolutely criminally insane for Castro to let the Soviets place nuclear warheads in Cuba but the US had done prety much the same thing to the Russians, and could have, if wished, fired nuclear warheads on Russian cities from neighbouring European countries. The true history of the Cuban missile crisis has been so clouded and distorted. Dont get me worng, the Soviets have to take a huge part of the responsibility, as do the Americans as they were completely implicit in what happened and not some sort of victim.

Anyway, 5 decades later and the majority of people think the sanctions should be dropped. Go to America, not the US, but latin america and its so blatantly obvious among the general population and leaders that the sanctions should be dropped. Another reason that the snctions should eb dropped is that after 5 long decades, they have simply not worked. Would it not make more sense to try something different, is that not basic logic?!?

I dont pick and choose dictators. The US as the worlds most poweful nation, who are aways banging on about peace, liberty, democracy, MUST be able to accept criticsm of their foreign policy. If you dont like how people continously crticise their foreign plicy, well I am so very sorry BUT i would be a lot more worried if there were not people throughout the world criticisng their policy, and also that of Russia, China etc...

P.S. Bay of Pigs Invasion