Is there any point, any more, in the U.S. having an embargo on Cuba?

Also . . . the way you frame that . . . Would you not agree, as a starting point, that a trade embargo is an extraordinary measure? And that, if there is no clearly greater reason to have it than not to have it, dropping it would automatically be the preferred, default position?

Or would you argue, to the contrary, that in such a situation maintaining the embargo is automatically the preferred, default position, simply because the embargo is the “status quo” and you don’t meddle with the “status quo” without good reason?

I’m really interested in your thought processes here.

(Much as a hacker is really interested in source code . . . :wink: )

Given that they are sending back a sizable percentage of the countries income, I can’t say that I get the impression that they’re dicontent so much as trying to do the best they can for their families.

I wouldn’t agree.

Memory Lane: Years ago, my cousin chipped her front tooth. Her parents were both still druggies at the time so had no money to spare for such things. My parents tell them that if they take her to a dentist, the dentist can bill them. Her parents, however, say that my parents have to send them the money, and they will pay for it direct.

Certainly it’s possible that if my parents had paid, her parents would have taken her–but given everything my family knew from all their dealings, there was no reason to believe that sending money wouldn’t simply have bought more drugs or alcohol.

We will never know, of course, but I certainly don’t feel that withholding the money is a grievous offence even though certainly not a nice thing[sup]TM[/sup] to do and ending any chance of my cousin having a perfect smile.

Simply, so long as you’re in a state where you can’t just fly in and swoop up my uncle’s children, sending money or no, really at any exchange all you can do is hope for the best for my cousins and be ready for the day you know you can swoop in.

It would depend on the dictator. If we’re talking Pol Pot, skip the embargo, do not collect $200 dollars, depose that sucker now. But that I can tell, Castro seems to be a “relatively” benevolent dictator–personally I would vote that he just likes to look good internationally more than that he cares about his people, but that’s me. …And when you’re living in Havana, really all you have to do to look like you’re doing good is kick up your feet and not do a lot.

I vote for a status quo in this case because I don’t see anything to be gained, not because I think that a “status quo” is always a good choice. Until we can get in there and free all the journalists locked up in jail, start searching down hidden graves, and trying to convert the country into not running on graft as the default–help or not help, either way the people are still getting the shaft.

Well, I’m one of the few who actually includes comments with my code.

We won’t break the embargo with an oil man in the White House.
They see the drilling of oil wells as the right from God to the oil, no matter who’s land they found it on, or whether they got the permits via graft. Once you have the oil mentality (and it dominates the states closest to Cuba) you cannot see past “driller’s rights” to public property of oil.

:confused: What does that have to do with the price of sex? We’re talking about an embargo, which interdicts commerce; any interdiction of charity incidental. If your cousin’s parent’s had offered to sell you their car, would it be your business how they spent the money?

If I don’t need the car and am only buying it on the basis that they would use the money to take care of their kids.

No one’s suggesting we have that kind of “commerce” with Cuba.

BrainGlutton: “I think the effect of a good or bad year would be reflected, not in the number of pesos you take home each week, but in what you can buy with them. […] the issue here is simply whether the U.S. should drop the embargo. I say that would be the best thing for the Cuban people”

Well here, I’ve been discussing things on a “best case” scenario, but let’s look at a bad one.

Let us say that a long time ago, Castro thought we were evil capitalist pigs and went out to find the most vocal hater of us, the USSR. He says to them, “Hey, these guys are right there on my doorstep and have they got some nerve! Let me help you out. Give me some money and I’ll let you park a couple of nuclear weapons at my crib just to make 'em sweat.” But in end result, we stop the missiles and Russia does what we want instead of what he wants–though they do give him some money. But the US keeps raggin on the USSR until they bust up and stop sending Castro money–meaning that he now has to earn a living for himself. Not only that, he’s back to just being a little island tyrant instead of the Great Threat and lead man of the great Communist Power!

And to add on top of everything, the US has dissed him and won’t give him any money or allow half of anyone to either.

Now let’s just pretend that, like many Latin men, Castro has a good helping of machismo in him–and say a good smattering of ego to go with it. He’s been reported as a little annoying bully for years on end and his people were going off to the US and making uber-dough, one of the few things keeping his perfect economy afloat.

And he decides, he’s going to dump any money he can get his hands on to secretly building a missile silo, and he sends off spies to the US to learn where all the fled Cubans live. And he has a button. A button he will use just befor he passes away. But alas! His economy is so bad that, not only can’t he build his missile silo, he has had to endebt himself to France just to keep the peasants fed so they don’t revolt! Oh, if only someone would bolster his economy!

Yes, he’ll get those traitors, and America back. He’ll be laughing on his way to Heaven!

^ So, what reason do I have to believe in everything I know about Castro that he is not a cantankerous, spiteful old man with every ability and reason to try and get revenge the moment he doesn’t have to worry about any repurcussions? Why should I believe that he won’t take our money, do a couple of press field-trips to show how everything is getting better with the new money–when really it’s a facade and 99% of all the money is going into his revenge ploy?

:rolleyes: That all ya got?

Alright, how about this story:

There’s this guy who lives in an war-torn nation, with all factions being tyranical dickheads. But he has to live there and see to his family, though still young. But as he ages and he has to take on more of the responsibilities of the family, but the condition of the country simply won’t allow that.

But he is deathly afraid of the tyranical warlords and can think of them as nothing other than indefeatable, insane madmen who would just as soon kill his family if they thought he was in the least discontent.

He fosters a great anger, his family should be able to live a life of safety! But he has nowhere to direct this hatred because of his fear.

Then he is told, “It is the US. They have interfered and sought to bring this strife to our nation so they can control it!” He studies under this man and finally has a place to turn his hatred–he has long since forgotten his family. The man tells him, “Now board a plane and run it into a building!”

Who would be so stupid? Why, certainly if someone was to do that, the combined wrath of the USA would come crunching down and squish you.

^ I live in Japan so I got to sit here and hear all the chewey goodness as North Korea shot a couple missiles over my head and into the ocean on the other side. Can you think of a reason for Castro not to bomb the US before he dies?

Hey, and this exact thing happened hundreds of times in WWII, what with the Kamikazi fliers and what-not, so it’s rather topical… :dubious:

You post that as though it is some Final Answer[sup]TM[/sup]. Of course I don’t have evidence that proves a hypothetical. You don’t either.

Rather a . . . I don’t know . . . "non sequitur’ is too strong a word . . . so is “argument.”

I perfectly well agree that all the stupid things a person could ever do that would be extremely catastrophic and unproductive are stupid. But we still live in a world where idiological individuals are willing to shove their heads up their ass and proceed on to do those things. Giving me a rolleyes to say “That’s just dumb”–yes I agree that it is just dumb. Now show me why anyone should have any belief that Castro isn’t an idiological individual with his head up his ass.

As of yet in this thread all the evidence for and against him is:

For:

  • Sent a group of doctors to Venezuela

Against:

  • Set his country up as the premiere launch site for any invasion into the US, or from which to launch nuclear armament

From here

. . . You are aware, are you not, that it is no longer 1962?

I’m just establishing a pattern.

According to the Wikipedia, about 2000 people try to escape the country by sea every year, and then according the above cite, roughly two thirds drown in the Florida Straights. Wiki also says that the 2000 figure has been growing in recent years.

So what would it take you to get on a boat with a two thirds chance of drowning? I doubt it’s because some guy was mean to you in 1962 but has been nice since.

Note: This math is almost definitely statistically meaningless. And yet I do it. :stuck_out_tongue:

The Irish Potato famine killed off (according to the Wikipedia) about 500,000 people of an initial population of 6.6 million Irish over a course of five years. Due to this, roughly two million people fled the country. So let’s assume that the number of deaths due to an epidemic is directly related to the number of people who try and escape as a function of the total population.

So, each year 100,000 people will have died and 400,000 will have fled: a 1 to 4 ratio. Of course, how many people flee a region will depend on how easily they can (border-length to land area ratio, public transportation, etc.) and whether they ever have a chance. But we’ll go with this number since I can’t think of any other countries to test with a similarly small border, large refugee count, and bordering free nations.

Now, the Wikipedia states that the number of people who have fled Cuba since 1959 is 1 million people. This yealds 21,739 per year, which matches up quite well with the figure out 20,000 legal immigrations (capped since 1994) plus anyone who survives the Florida Straights. So at a 1 to 4 ratio, this would mean that about 5400 people would be being killed every year in the country, or a total of 248,400 killings or deaths by starvation, etc. since 1959. Of course, it is probably harder to escape Cuba than Ireland, so a lower ratio is to be expected (like 1 to 2), but certainly the 100,000 deaths number is perfectly believable.

Meaningless, because it does not show how ending the embargo would make things worse for the Cuban people, or even how it would fail to make things better.

Your argument, as I understood it, was that if we give send money to Cuba (via trade), we can trust that that money will be allowed to help the people.

My argument was, “What reason do we have to trust Castro to do anything good for the people?”

That he is a mass murderer could possibly be conceived as being an indicator that he’s not a real trustworthy fellow. And when you have a non-trustworthy fellow who happens to like killing lots of people, why should we trust that he won’t use that money for bad purposes before good?

Or, if you want to insist that the money which goes into Cuba isn’t 100% controlled by Castro, you’re going to have to prove that beyond “I read him as a True Believer.” If he was a true believer in creating an equal society of everlasting, sustainable peace, he wouldn’t be keeping his people imprisoned on the island, killing them at will.

:rolleyes: You’re really reaching there. Castro is not a “mass murderer.” Not unless you count those who got killed trying to cross the Florida Straits as murder victims of his – and you shouldn’t; they knew the risks, mainly of drowning. Otherwise, AFAIK he is innocent of any Stalin-style purges or artificial famines. He does not “like to kill people.” And he can be trusted to do things good for the people because he has, in fact, done so – at least, a lot of very worthwhile things have been done on his watch.

I repeat: When Cuba opened trade with a lot of other countries after the Cold War, life did get better for the people. So, if they are allowed to open trade with the U.S. too, why should not life for them get better still?