But your plan also helps Castro and his ilk, since it’s much easier to oppress a poor and uninformed people – are you okay with that, or do you disagree?
If my preferred plan hurt the Castros (and other Cuban hardliners), but helped the people and the nation-state in general, would you still oppose it?
How to you prioritize the following: harming the Castros/their ilk (by reducing their power or increasing the likelihood of their overthrow); harming Cuba the nation-state; helping the Cuban people; helping the American economy and opportunities for Americans.
To me, helping the American economy and opportunities for Americans is #1, helping the Cuban people is #2, harming the Castros/their ilk is #3; and harming Cuba the nation-state is #4. My plan helps 1-3 while running counter to #4. IMO, your plan goes against 1-3 while helping #4, thus apparently, IMO, valuing harming Cuba the nation-state as more important than all the other priorities combined. Do you believe that harming Cuba the nation-state is this important that it’s worth helping the Castros and hurting the Cuban people and American opportunities, or do you not agree that it does all this?
iiandyiii, his position seems clear to me: Bricker mostly wants to hurt the Castro regime in such a way as to force them to surrender the nationalized assets. Losing the embargo may hurt the Castro hold over the populace long-term but it’s not going to make them say “Ok, you win. Take the sugar plantations and put the embargo back on so we can retain our iron grip!”.
But the embargo hasn’t done that in any way – if anything, it’s helped the Castros. The embargo hasn’t helped anyone but the Castros. I don’t see how it’s helped, in any way, the chances of the US regaining stolen assets. A rapproachement, on the other hand, might just open the door to discussions about stolen assets (among other things).
That’s a wonderful, one-dimensional analysis of the problem. Cuba bad. Punish Cuba. Me win.
The other dimensions, just to scratch the surface are:
The Cuban people, themselves, didn’t do anything wrong. That’s 99.9% of the nation-state (approximately; don’t hold me to that exact figure).
Americans want to travel to Cuba. The government is stepping to prevent Americans from traveling to a country they want to to go to. That is an interest that one would hope our very own government would at least consider.
As iianydiiii has pointed out, it’s much easier to control a suppressed and impoverished population. The sanctions help the Castros keep the population in that state. It’s unclear that the sanctions actually hurt the folks in charge of Cuba. They can get whatever they want.
I’m sure there are many more, and encourage other posters here to add to the list.
Yes, I read that - but the past tense is key. He knew it had taken place, as opposed to knowing it was planned.
As to your view that Trump isn’t truly a supporter of the embargo. . . sure. I doubt he has any strong convictions on the point, or even really understands why we treat Cuba differently than Jamaica or the Dominican Republic. I am relatively certain he did this as part of an “undo what Obama did” rather than applying any serious analytical consideration of the issues. I have no trouble believing that.
Again I remind you that I don’t agree your plan does much to help the Cuban people, so I resist adopting your analysis of your plan’s benefit.
I do prioritize the return of our property or fair compensation for it above “helping the Cuban people.” We have no particular duty to help the Cuban people.
It makes the US look bad (morally speaking), for harshly punishing a people for past crimes of their autocratic leaders; it also makes the US look weak, for punishing such a massively smaller/poorer country that presents no reasonable threat. It gives the Castros and their ilk actual and reasonable arguments as to why US is the enemy of the Cuban people.
Unfortunately, the government is in such control there that even loosening the sanctions only benefits the upper echelon. The population remains suppressed and impoverished no matter what.
Do you agree that your plan helps the Castros and their ilk by making the populace easier to oppress (because they’re less informed then they would be if there were American travelers and businesses there every day)? Also, if you did concede that my plan would improve the lives of the Cuban people over, say, the next few decades, would that sway your position on the issue?
Your plan does nothing to increase the chances of getting compensation for our property. If you disagree, how does it help? It’s done nothing towards this in the last 50 years. My plan, on the other hand, opens up the possibility of discussion on this and other issues.
Engagement has increased the prosperity and quality of live of the Chinese and Vietnamese people, even if they are still oppressed in many ways – why are you so convinced that there’s zero chance it could do this for the Cuban people?
A thief isn’t comparable to a country. For one thing, we don’t punish the thief’s family for his crimes. For another, in this metaphor the thief is actually being helped, since he abuses his family and it’s his family that is bearing the brunt of the punishment, making it easier for him to abuse them.
There will be jobs and money with a lowering of the sanctions. There’s really no doubt about that. Maybe it’d be more realistic to dial your position back to maybe “the regime will get the lion’s share of the benefits” or something.
I do not agree that my plan helps the Castros in any meaningful way that differs from your plan.
A few decades? No, because predictably this is simply a way to create even more distance from the theft. If in 25 years your plan has brought prosperity to the island and better outcomes for its people, I assure you there would be even less traction for demanding a return on our property, or compensation. This thread advises me to “Let it go,” and I can only imagine the sentiment when no one is left who remembers first-hand the theft.
Does it? How?
I say that when there is no one named Castro running Cuba, there will be a willingness to discuss repayments in order to lift sanctions. But if there are no sanctions, then there will be no willingness.
If he cannot pay restitution, does the court have a right to pursue his children, his relatives, his neighbours, his entire town, his country of origin? Even after his death?
The problem is that’s completely unrealistic. No Cuban leader, Castro or not, is going to buckle under to this punishment. The Cuban people don’t want them to and it would make them look ridiculously weak. I doubt anyone is getting anything back but it really is a much more intelligent strategy to “give them something to lose”. That way you have some actual bargaining room.
Whatever, dude. Being a christian is supposedly something important to Bricker and I don’t remember any Cuba exceptions in Sunday School. I will remember this thread the next time Bricker lectures us on some aspect of Catholic dogma.