This gets my vote for the real reason we are supposed to hate Cuba. No presidential candidate can affford to simpy surrender Florida to the opposition, so no president ever moves to make our relations with Cuba rational.
Except that once Castro is dead then it’s a different story. I don’t say that George Bush would end the sanctions, but certainly the president after George Bush would end sanctions once Castro is dead.
As for the Nixon visiting Maoist China, that’s certainly true, but the geopolitical situation so favored normalizing relations with China. Back in the 70s a lot of people were convinced that we were losing the Cold War, and anything that counterbalanced the Soviets had to be considered. And this is the same reason we continue to trade with China, even though China’s human rights record wouldn’t look much different when compared to Cuba’s. The economic benefits of trading with China are huge. The economic losses from not trading with Cuba are very small.
But of course, we didn’t embargo Cuba because of Cuba’s terrible human rights record, we embargoed Cuba for different reasons. Human rights had nothing to do with it. Human rights get brought up TODAY as a justification for continuing (or not continuing) the embargo, but if a new country popped out of the Carribean today with the exact same human rights record as Cuba there would be absolutely no embargo.
The continuation of the embargo illustrates a few problems of democracy. It’s easy to implement new programs, but hard to stop old programs. A small but vocal activist group will get more attention that a large but indifferent group. A small group of people who are passionately opposed to normalizing relations with Cuba will beat a large group of people who kind of want to normalize relations with Cuba.
Yes, which is why we need to be extremely wary of government programs in general. It’s very hard to get rid of farm subsidies once they are implemented, it is much easier to stop them in their infancy.
In what way are “sanctions not working?” Maybe I’m totally wrong, but it was never my impression that the embargo was supposed to knock Castro from power all by itself. It was clearly part of a larger campaign against him, a campaign that included supporting attempted coups and assassinations. Eventually we just gave up on the more overt acts and the embargo has remained–I don’t really think it is officially there because we think the economic sanctions are going to change how Cuba functions or because we expect them to knock Castro out of power. I doubt very seriously anyone in the United States government thinks that they “work” beyond just interfering with trade between the U.S. and Cuba.
The current diplomatic/economic situation in regard to Cuba is a bone to Cuban exiles living in Florida, it really isn’t anything more than that. Not only do I think we wouldn’t invade if someone convinced our government that the sanctions weren’t working, I think if you even suggested they were working most government officials would probably laugh (off-camera.)
I’m not exactly sure what the term “Reich winger” means. Considering what the word Reich means in German the phrase doesn’t really make much sense. At least most of the other stupid adjectives people on the forum have made up to insult Conservatives are at least somewhat logical (see: “tighty righty”, “BushCo”, “Bushavik” et cetera.)
All that aside, if you think it’s a bad thing to dislike Hugo Chavez you need to take a long look in the mirror. Hugo Chavez is a dictator, someone who has in the past tried to seize power violently, he has suppressed free thought and those who oppose him. He has labeled people who disagree with him as traitors, and he has caused a massive increase in the number of Venezuelans who are fleeing their country and seeking political asylum in other states.
“Reich-wing” is a not terribly uncommon pejorative in the leftysphere.
I dare say that Chavez’ electoral victories were more legitimate than Bush’s.
Does he also say that those that oppose his policies are aiding terrorism and that to disagree with him is unpatriotic? Chavez isn’t a great leader or even a good one by any stretch of the imagination. But Americans that believe they have reason to fear Venezuela’s military are just a little off their rockers.
Frankly, that says more about your trustworthiness than about Bush’s.
Yes, but why exactly are you using it here? If you saw someone using silly terms like “dumb-ocrats” or “feminazis”, would you take what they had to say seriously, or would you consider them to be a brain-dead partisan content to spew platitudes? It’s fine to criticize people you disagree with. But this says more about you than it does about them.
Attempting to “kill the messenger” actually makes me even more distrustful of you.
As for Castro, I have to take things in context, and speaking of Chavez I have to point out (since right wingers always miss stuff) that Chavez success was what told me that Castro will not be absolved by history.
It was close though, you see, if the coup against Chavez had succeeded that would had been a *certification that Castro was correct * on the way he is doing. What is the use to follow democracy if the people with power can conspire to destroy the popular will? The answer: Chavez success and the people standing up against those oligarchs. That showed (and with reservations, because the rich are still at it all over Latin America and even the USA) that opposing democracy just because you fear changes in Cuba is idiotic, keeping it a dictatorship is the best excuse for the USA to intervene, even Chavez IIRC did said that it was a pity Castro did not make some democratic moves.
OTOH I’m convinced the USA embargo continues to help Castro keep power, in this tale of repression it takes two to tango.
Indeed.
Sorry, we’re working with a limited budget here. Gotta pick one. Cuba’s closer, therefore easier.
Only, let’s do it like we did with Germany in WWI! It’s not enough to hate Cuba, you gotta hate all things Cuban! Desi Arnaz was an unhanged traitor! Cuban sandwiches are now Liberty pork-popkins!
I agree that the embargo has help to legitimize Castro’s, but it has not affected his ability to stay in power, his ruthlessness is enough for that. Fidel Castro does not depend on popular opinion to stay in power, it’s not like he would be attack in the press, or his party suffer in the elections.
Rum and coke is now a Cuba Libre!
The idea that the only people complaining about Chavez are oligarchs is a pleasant fiction that leftists have created so they can feel good about supporting a monster. The middle class have also suffered under Chavez, it is not simply coincidence that the educated and the middle class on up are leaving Venezuela in unprecedented numbers. We’re not looking at a Cuban-esque exodus, but we are starting to see significant numbers of people leaving Venezuela versus the numbers who were leaving it pre-Chavez.
On a sliding scale Chavez is not as bad as Castro, Chavez was at least elected. But many of the most brutal dictators have, in fact, been properly elected through their country’s political system. The legitimacy of a given dictator’s rise to power doesn’t necessarily indicate how terrible/benevolent said dictator actually is.
In a properly functioning democratic country which respected the rule of law, Chavez would be in prison. The man tried to violently overthrow the government in a coup. Leftists for whatever reason try to forget that this ever happened, and paint Chavez as a poor victim of bickering oligarchs.
Worse yet is the fact that vast nationalization that drives out the upper class has been proven time and time again as disastrous for the country in question. The upper and middle classes tend to be business leaders, the highly educated, doctors, lawyers and et cetera. When they all start leaving your country is going to suffer serious brain drain.
I also find it interesting that people who are outspokenly anti-Bush try to excuse Chavez’s actions by pointing to similarities they perceive to exist between Bush and Chavez. For example Chavez labels his political enemies as traitors, and BobLibDem makes a vague association with Bush. Well, if you think Bush labels his enemies as traitors, and that is a bad thing, that means it’s still a bad thing when Chavez does it. Of course, Chavez does a lot more than call people traitors, he actually tries to have them arrested as traitors and thus many of his political opponents have fled the country. Last I checked Bush has never actually levied the accusation that his political opponents are committing acts of treason, let alone try to arrest them for said acts.
They are the ones with more power to do change, yet I only see that the change they prefer is the militaristic one to get what they want, since that is less possible now they decide it is better to flee.
Sorry. I came from El Salvador, there is a big difference when the “dictator” gets elected properly than in a sham election.
He did go to prison for that.
No, it is clear people like you do like to “forget” other items.
I would think it would be worse if they do not have the freedom to leave, in any case I can not forget that many did organized a boycott that sunk the economy and then they had the chutzpa to say the fall was Chavez fault. And then the coup against Chavez took place.
My cats breath smell like cat food, I’m not one of those that excuse Chavez for that, however seeing the evidence of the media being complicit in the coup there is little but to say that the “shoe fits”
Bush has no evidence, Chavez does. And once again in the end I have to say that the defense of Chavez is just caused by the context. Because the opposition has shown it can not be trusted at all.
That is too simple, I think the Bay of Pigs was even more helpful to Castro because it showed all Cubans that Castro was not being deluded or crazy for fearing the USA and the Cuban opposition.
I will have to go for what some CIA analyst said of the Bay of Pigs Fiasco and say that we are fooling ourselves in assuming that the majority of the Cuban people do not support Castro. I do think that once he is out of the way reform will be happen, I would still say that nothing still justify the ideas of many in Florida to assume the exiled community would be welcomed with flowers and kisses.
I can’t cite anything, but it’s always seemed to me that Castro has no interest in having any sort of normalized relations with the U.S. The guy is a bastard, but he’s not a stupid bastard. He realizes that normalization would mean that Cuba would be immediately swamped with American money, which would negate his precious revolution and essentially bring the country back to where it was in the 50s.
I’m not saying that the Cuban immigrants aren’t the main force perpetuating the embargo. But I think that if Castro were to make nice, they’d be fairly quickly overruled.
At this point, it barely matters. Castro isn’t going to be around much longer (even if he seems like the Eveready bunny), and then we’ll see where the chips fall. I think the smart money is betting Raul can’t hold the whole thing together. He’s not very healthy, he’s an alcoholic, and he’s got the charisma of a toad.
Okay, let me get this straight. The embargo was never supposed to accomplish anything by itself, but we decided to not do anything else, and now we all know it has not accomplished anything, but we are not going to stop doing it.
Was that a refutation, or an agreement? I think the sanctions are not working, you thing the sanctions are not working, the government thin . . . well, you get the idea. Now, when I see folks doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to change, I call it . . . stupid. What do you call it?
I am soooooo confused.
Tris
“These things that are pleasin’ you can hurt you somehow.” ~ Don Henley & Glenn Frey ~
Who’s ‘we’ kimosabe? I don’t recall anyone ever telling me to hate OR fear the Cubans. About all I’ve ever been ‘told’ about Cuba is that their economy sucks, their health care is supposedly decent and they make fine cigars that we can’t buy here in the states but that everyone actually has a stash of. Could you list some sources of folks who told you to hate and fear the Cubans?
(I can’t for the life of me think why anyone would FEAR the Cubans…and as for hate them, only some folks in Florida come to mind wrt that particular feeling afaik. Or maybe some rabid right-wing types I suppose)
Maybe because you were never actually told to hate or fear them…and so, not being told that (or perhaps hearing it on some talk radio show right wing ranting) it didn’t really sink in? Just a thought…
Well…nothing. Which is why they aren’t exactly top shelf news in the US. Which, in turn is probably why you actually WEREN’T ever told to hate or fear them…ehe? Unless you are from an ex-Cuban refugee family living in Florida of course. ARE you? If so I can probably think of a few reasons why you were taught to hate and fear the Cubans (well, hate anyway)…though most likely in that case you were probably brought up with those reasons at your mama’s breast.
I’d say the most news worthy thing that will come out of Cuba any time soon is when Castro finally kicks the bucket…
-XT
Who says anyone expects the outcome to change? The embargo isn’t going to change anything, rather it is going to preserve the status quo. Lifting the embargo is what will change things.
Let me get this straight.
Preserve the status quo. Well, Castro was in office when we started the embargo, Castro is still in office. Check.
So, this entire thing was a super secret plan to support Castro?
I really never guessed.
Tris
Getting back to the OP, if I may expand a little on the question it posed:
(1) Aside from keeping the Cuban-American vote in Florida happy, is there any good reason why the U.S. should not resume diplomatic relations with Cuba?
(2) Also, is there any good reason why the U.S. should not call off its economic embargo of Cuba (and stop harassing the American citizens who take trips there or buy Cuban cigars)?