Castro Gone
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:54 amPage 1 of 2
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:00 amSoon, I can finally check out all those places Johnny Ola told me about!
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:05 amKnoxVegas wrote:Soon, I can finally check out all those places Johnny Ola told me about!
LOL! He knows all the great joints....
Let the big party begin in Little Havana!
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:33 amPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:50 amUnfortunately, the embargo stands so long as either Castro is in power. But Raul is 76 so maybe we won't have to wait very long.
Interesting note on this story...Castro issued his statement in the middle of the night on the online version of the Communist Party newspaper Granma, however it is illegal for Cubans to have Internet access at home so no one would know about the news until they got to work this morning (presumably in a 1950s era Soviet-bloc automobile). Hooray Communism!
Interesting note on this story...Castro issued his statement in the middle of the night on the online version of the Communist Party newspaper Granma, however it is illegal for Cubans to have Internet access at home so no one would know about the news until they got to work this morning (presumably in a 1950s era Soviet-bloc automobile). Hooray Communism!
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:53 amCan someone please tell me why our government choose to have an embargo against Communist Cuba but instead chooses to do business with Communist China and Vietnam? Ironic, no?
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:08 amStrykerFSU wrote:...(presumably in a 1950s era Soviet-bloc automobile). Hooray Communism!
Laughed out loud at the office to this, probably shouldn't considering it's likely to be true, but still got me.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:28 amStrykerFSU wrote: so no one would know about the news until they got to work this morning (presumably in a 1950s era Soviet-bloc automobile). Hooray Communism!
Soviet-bloc automobiles?? Nah, Detroit iron all the way!
Here is a fun read on "classic" American cars in Havana...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/automobiles/27MILL.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:30 pmThere was a big boat show in Miami this long weekend.
I expected to see the mega-yachts headed for Mariel on the news this morning.
I guess maybe the Cuban Exile Community in South Florida doesn't see this a sufficient change to return.
I expected to see the mega-yachts headed for Mariel on the news this morning.
I guess maybe the Cuban Exile Community in South Florida doesn't see this a sufficient change to return.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:54 pmCuba is a great place for those looking for vintage American Autos.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:58 pmCan someone please tell me why our government choose to have an embargo against Communist Cuba but instead chooses to do business with Communist China and Vietnam? Ironic, no?
Come on Knox, you know it's un-American to ask a question like that. You want to know why; well the answer is.........because! The embargo never really hurt the regime, just the people. Not directly, but Castro was able to use his peoples suffering as ammunition. It's really tough for America to admit that it's wrong, especially when it comes to foreign policy. There have been some serious offers brought to the table in the past, but the FL delegation would have made it virtually impossible. The anti Castro lobby in the country is very powerful and this topic inflames South Florida’s passions like no other.
Looking forward to the day when this island is open and I don't need two flights through two different countries’s to get there. We have a huge and beautiful island 90 miles off our shores. Kind of strange that we didn’t take it when it was on a silver platter for the US. This was at a time when US expansion was at the forefront of our culture.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:35 pmI'm certainly no expert on this but I found some interesting things out concerning Knox's question.
The U.S. has had an embargo in place against Cuba since 1962 so I don't know in who's lap you want to place responsibility. I think the embargo is and was justified considering that in the process of their "revolution", Castro and his supporters nationalized (read: stole) extensive assets belonging to U.S. citizens and corporations. It doesn't take much of an intellectual stretch to see why it might be undesirable to do business with a regime that would be profiting from the investment of labor and capital of our citizens. Add that to Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union and it is clear why we should have set up an embargo.
As for the period following the fall of the Soviets, it has been the policy of the U.S. to encourage the spread of democracy, something Cuba hardly qualifies as, and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 strengthened the embargo to bring additional pressure on the Cuban Government to become more democratic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act
It is fair to say that the average Cuban hasn't had a great time during the embargo (unless speaking with Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, etc.) but that might have just as much to do with the economic inefficiencies inherent in a planned economy. Cuba certainly has plenty of other trade partners. As for the passions of South Florida's Cubans, I think they are justified in their feelings. They are the ones after all who were forced to flee the "revolution".
As for China, we began to normalize trade relations with that nation in the early 1970's. While the Maoist regime of China is Communist, the U.S. and China shared a common adversary in the Soviet Union. Clearly, our economic partnership with China is a source of great concern in the present day and continues despite seriously questionable practices by the Chinese government, however to impose an embargo in this case would be foolish beyond belief if not impossible altogether.
Some key numbers to also keep in mind:
China GDP = $10.17 Trillion
Cuba GDP = $45.51 Billion
Vietnam GDP = $262.8 Billion
I think the initial question is really one of apples and oranges but in a way that is probably appropriate as the consistent application of foreign policy has not been a strong point in the history of the U.S. government.
The U.S. has had an embargo in place against Cuba since 1962 so I don't know in who's lap you want to place responsibility. I think the embargo is and was justified considering that in the process of their "revolution", Castro and his supporters nationalized (read: stole) extensive assets belonging to U.S. citizens and corporations. It doesn't take much of an intellectual stretch to see why it might be undesirable to do business with a regime that would be profiting from the investment of labor and capital of our citizens. Add that to Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union and it is clear why we should have set up an embargo.
As for the period following the fall of the Soviets, it has been the policy of the U.S. to encourage the spread of democracy, something Cuba hardly qualifies as, and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 strengthened the embargo to bring additional pressure on the Cuban Government to become more democratic:
The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996 (Helms-Burton Act, Pub.L. 104-114, 110 Stat. 785, 22 U.S.C. § 6021–6091) is a United States federal law which strengthens and continues the United States embargo against Cuba. The act extended the territorial application of the initial embargo to apply to foreign companies trading with Cuba, and penalized foreign companies allegedly "trafficking" in property formerly owned by U.S. citizens but expropriated by Cuba after the Cuban revolution. The act also covers property formerly owned by Cubans who have since become U.S. citizens.[1]
The law was passed on March 12, 1996 by the 104th United States Congress. The bill, which had been tabled in late 1995 after Senator Helms was unable to overcome several Democratic filibusters, was reintroduced prompted by an episode that happened a month earlier. On February 24, 1996, Cuban fighter jets shot down two private planes operated by a Miami based anti-Castro Cuban refugee support group called Brothers to the Rescue (Hermanos al Rescate). [2] [3].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act
It is fair to say that the average Cuban hasn't had a great time during the embargo (unless speaking with Sean Penn, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, etc.) but that might have just as much to do with the economic inefficiencies inherent in a planned economy. Cuba certainly has plenty of other trade partners. As for the passions of South Florida's Cubans, I think they are justified in their feelings. They are the ones after all who were forced to flee the "revolution".
As for China, we began to normalize trade relations with that nation in the early 1970's. While the Maoist regime of China is Communist, the U.S. and China shared a common adversary in the Soviet Union. Clearly, our economic partnership with China is a source of great concern in the present day and continues despite seriously questionable practices by the Chinese government, however to impose an embargo in this case would be foolish beyond belief if not impossible altogether.
Some key numbers to also keep in mind:
China GDP = $10.17 Trillion
Cuba GDP = $45.51 Billion
Vietnam GDP = $262.8 Billion
I think the initial question is really one of apples and oranges but in a way that is probably appropriate as the consistent application of foreign policy has not been a strong point in the history of the U.S. government.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:49 pmAlmost forgot to add this. The US prior to 9-11 passed an agricultural lift on the embargo, along with medical supplies. It was a cash only business so it didn't really have legs or much momentum. Still doesn't with the rstrictions, but they tried to marginalize the regimes tampering. It has helped to some extent and was hailed as evidence for further loosening of the embargo.
Also, on the day the first naval ships pulled into Guantanamo with prisoners, the US also happened to have 3 very large ships with supplies for the Castro regime. If anyone has wondered why they have been so quiet on this topic, when it is such a huge international story....this is why. Many have speculated and there have been some reports that we have continually "bought" some silence regarding our operations there.
Also, on the day the first naval ships pulled into Guantanamo with prisoners, the US also happened to have 3 very large ships with supplies for the Castro regime. If anyone has wondered why they have been so quiet on this topic, when it is such a huge international story....this is why. Many have speculated and there have been some reports that we have continually "bought" some silence regarding our operations there.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:53 pmStrykerFSU wrote:(presumably in a 1950s era Soviet-bloc automobile)
In soviet Russia, car drives you!
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:46 pmZeuslax wrote:If anyone has wondered why they have been so quiet on this topic, when it is such a huge international story....this is why. Many have speculated and there have been some reports that we have continually "bought" some silence regarding our operations there.
So let me get this straight.
We are so worried about the international backlash caused by reports from Cuba -- a country that even veiled communist Jimmy Carter said had severe basic human rights problems -- about the Guantanamo prisons that we need to bribe them?
And the international community will supposedly take the word of a regime that has jailed political dissidents who would consider water-boarding an enjoyable day by the pool?
I would be very interested in reading the "reports" you speak of and just one of the "many" who have speculated about this.