Cuba's army.

[Rebar]

If it isn't about money, and if we are liberating Iraq, and if the Cuban voting bloc wants Cuba liberated, and Cuba is a dangerous dictatorship 90 miles away and oppressing good people, and we have a Military base established in Cuba that makes Military Intervention feasible, then explain to me why we aren't going to liberate Cuba?

As part of the agreement to get Russian missiles out of Cuba, Kennedy promised two things: remove our missiles from Turkey, and not attack Cuba in the future. While the Soviet Union has collapsed, so technically the agreement is void, there was and is no pressing need to attack Cuba, they pose no direct threat to America. Unlike Iraq, which was a pressing and immediate concern.

Interestingly, the pitiful little invasion ocurred just after Castro nationalized $1 billion worth of sugar plantations that were owned by American interests.

Castro nationalized everything, not just sugar plantations. And the actual invastion plan was good, except everything depended on air power. Kennedy gave the go on the land operation but for some incomprehensable reason decided not to allow the air strikes. Which doomed the whole operation. The same kind of half-assed nonsense he started in Vietnam.

 

[butch50]

Rebar: And the actual invastion plan was good...

Bay of Pigs Invasion, unsuccessful attempt in 1961 to overthrow the government of the Cuban premier Fidel Castro by United States-backed Cuban exiles. . The invasion plan was approved by John F. Kennedy. On April 17 about 1300 exiles, armed with U.S. weapons, were landed at the Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs) on the south coast of Cuba. Hoping to find support from the local population, they intended to cross the island to Havana, but were quickly stopped by Castro's army. By the time the fighting ended on April 19, 90 men had been killed and the rest were prisoners.http://www.accesspro.net/machete/cuba/libre/bay.htm

1300 civilians do not a well planned invasion make

Rebar: Castro nationalized everything, not just sugar plantations

1958 Fidel, now 33, drove from Santiago to Havana, arriving on 8 January. He was named Prime Minister and on 25 January over a million Cubans filled the streets to hear Fidel define the goals of the new Revolution.

The new government immediately nationalized all landholdings over 400 hectares..... The US was outraged by the nationalization of American-owned plantations and initiated a CIA-led plan to oust the Castro Government .http://www.scripophily.net/vercamsugcom1.html

You say Iraq was a threat to us, sorry but I don't buy it. Cuba is no threat to us, I agree with that. But Cuba is a nation only 90 miles away, and the Cuban people have a culture that is very similar to ours, they share the same values as we do, and would seem to be more deserving of immediate liberation than the Iraqis who are very little at all like us, don't share our values, and are on the other side of the globe. One has to wonder what exactly it is that keeps us from liberating the good Cuban people, and if it isn't about money then I don't clearly understand what it is.

I am open to enlightenment, but please put some serious thought into it.

 

[jefnvk]

I think we simply know tha Castro won't be alive for too much longer, and are waiting it out to see what is going to happen.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

4.9% is sky high (the last figure I heard this afternoon)?

Let me put it this way - the Russian and Ukrainian governments aren't real reliable with these kinds of figures. If you look in the CIA factbook for example, you'll find:

Russia:
Unemployment rate:
8.3% plus considerable underemployment (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
25% (January 2003 est.)

Ukraine:
Unemployment rate:
3.5% officially registered; large number of unregistered or underemployed workers; the International Labor Organization calculates that Ukraine's real unemployment level is around 9-10 percent (2004 est.)
Population below poverty line:
29% (2003 est.)

Now these figures are optimistic, and as I said, many of the people there listed as "employed" are not being paid for their work - how do I know? I've read about that in countless sources, been there and spoken to people who are in that situation, and my father-in-law is one of them! He is a cardiologist in a government hospital, and the head of treatment there. He only gets paid about half the time. The situation is so bad though that people are afraid to lose a job that doesn't pay them, so they keep showing up.

People not paid for the work they do? (I think I would have heard these complaints)

I don't know any nice way to say this, but if you are unaware of that, you are not real well informed. In addition to my personal involvement, I've read about it in economics, business, news, science publications. If you have been following events at all over the last decade there, I don't know how you can miss it.

Russia is doing better than Ukraine. The only reason though is that oil prices have shot up, and they are one of the world's largest oil producers. Their manufacturing, etc have collapsed, just as they have in Ukraine.

Viktor Yuschenko, the new president of Ukraine, seemed much better than Kuchma, we will see though - he has come under heavy criticism from the populace in recent months under corruption allegations.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

jefnvk

So, just for the heck of it, I did a Google search on Ukraine unpaid workers (most of this stuff I read was long ago when it was still news), and the first result was from the International Labor Organization, and title is:

"Survey shows majority of workers on unpaid leave or simply unpaid"

Today the International Labour Office (ILO) is releasing the first results of a major survey of industrial enterprises in Ukraine covering over half a million workers. It tells a story of hardship and decline that has lasted throughout the first decade of the country's existence since the break-up of the Soviet Union. "The conventional statistics on employment and unemployment are distorting and misleading", says the Director of the ILO's InFocus programme on socio-economic security in the twenty-first century, Guy Standing, who designed the survey. "Most of the nominally employed do not have jobs, and many of those in jobs are not being paid."

The survey * covered a representative national sample of 690 firms employing 583,679 workers. It was carried out in 1999, and a comparable survey is now under way. The following are among the main findings:

Ukrainian industrial firms are operating at less than 44% capacity, compared with 66% in 1995 - an unprecedented decline that has made the level much lower than in any industrialized economy

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2000/13.htm



From a CNN article on the recent election there (just a paragraph that happens to mention the problem):

The Communists had hoped to draw strength from millions of pensioners, unpaid workers and other angry voters whose living standards have plummeted since Ukraine gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

The government owes the equivalent of some $2.5 billion in back wages, and hundreds of millions more in pensions -- which are woefully inadequate even when they arrive on time.

2.5 billion in Ukraine by the way, is an awful lot of money - their per capita income is only 1/10th what it is in the US.

A BBC story about unpaid nuclear workers threatening to cut off the power:

Several hundred Ukrainian nuclear workers have held a rally in front of the cabinet building in the capital, Kiev, demanding unpaid wages and more government support for nuclear plants.

The demonstrators warned that the lack of funds meant safety at the plants could no longer be guaranteed.

Union leaders say salary arrears amount to fifteen million dollars, and are threatening to cut the power output.

Ukraine has five nuclear plants which provide almost half of the country's electricity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/282185.stm

There have been hundreds, if not thousands of stories written about this - you need to get out there more, jefnvk.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

jefnvk

A quick Google search on Russian pensioners produced from Radio Free Europe:

For months, Russian pensioners, veterans, and advocates for the disabled have been complaining loudly about a government move to replace key social benefits with cash payments.
:
:
A female protestor added, "My pension is 1,700 rubles [$60]! How can you live on that?"

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/01/eff80e2a-eae0-4f20-9246-cb3ead5ce99c.html

On ukraine pensioners:

The minimum pension in 1990 was about $60 per month. Today, retirees receive less than $20 per month as a pension benefit, less than the poverty level amount of $30 per month.

http://www.usaid.gov/locations/europe_eurasia/mt/penreform.htm

Veterans also don't receive or receive heavily cutback benefits in Ukraine and Russia. How do I know? My father-in-law is a veteran of the Afghan war.

Things aren't going well there. I can point out all kinds of other problems beyond the economy if you like. Additonally, although I know less about them, I would guess that the situation in the "Stan" countries of the Former Soviet Union is even worse. Why? Because they had less of everything to begin with, and were being propped up by Moscow prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

On a positive note, Poland is on the upswing - it's the only FSU country that I know of that's made real progress since the fall of Communism - and yes, I've been there too. But they are well led, that's what it all comes down to.

 

[butch50]

I think we simply know tha Castro won't be alive for too much longer, and are waiting it out to see what is going to happen.

It is not highly probable that when Castro dies Cuba will become free. His likely successors do not seem inclined towards deomocracy. I don't think our leadership is unaware of that.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

It is not highly probable that when Castro dies Cuba will become free. His likely successors do not seem inclined towards deomocracy. I don't think our leadership is unaware of that.

Maybe not, but I hope/suspect that after he dies, the US will normalize relations with Cuba. While I don't think it's just a given... that kind of engagement can have real positive effects.

 

[butch50]

Among other things, Cuba is the poster child of how embargos don't work. I don't think I have ever seen an embargo that was successful. Does anyone know of one that was?

 

[jefnvk]

I thought he was taking a jab at America';s unemployment and pension, not Russia. I completely agree there.

 

[Rebar]

I am open to enlightenment, but please put some serious thought into it.

I put thought into everything I post. But none are so blind, as those who refuse to see.

You claim that it's only "big sugar" that keeps Cuba in chains. Yet you provide absolutely not a bit of proof that the US was about to liberate them, but stopped because "big sugar" made them.

Please provide this evidence.

 

[jefnvk]

You claim that it's only "big sugar" that keeps Cuba in chains. Yet you provide absolutely not a bit of proof that the US was about to liberate them, but stopped because "big sugar" made them.

I completely agree with rebar.

Just as in the price gouging thread, it is up to the people making the accusations to prove them, not the opposing side to disprove them.

 

[butch50]

You claim that it's only "big sugar" that keeps Cuba in chains. Yet you provide absolutely not a bit of proof that the US was about to liberate them, but stopped because "big sugar" made them.

I claim that big sugar has influenced both democratic and republican parties. The bay of pigs is the only attempt that I am aware of to liberate them. I do not claim, as you put it, that "the US was about to liberate them, but stopped because big sugar made them". If I said that, or implied that, please point out where.

What I am saying is this - Since we are eager to liberate a country on the far side of the globe why are we reluctant to liberate a country 90 miles away? I am making an assumption here, that assumption is that there is a rational reasoning working behind our reluctance to liberate Cuba. It is possible however that there is an irrational basis for not liberating Cuba at work. If the basis is irrational, then end of discussion of course.

If the basis is rational, what is it? This gets into theorizing - take the facts that we have and propose a theory that best fits those facts. In this case I am theorizing that the reason is based on economics. If that is true that it is based on economics, then what are the economics that could have an influence on our political machine.

The only threat that I can find that Cuba could pose to any economic sector of our country is sugar. Cuba used to be, and could quicly again become, a major supplier of sugar. Sugar in the USA is a highly protected product, and is virtually a cartel. The Sugar industry has a strangle hold on Florida policiticans. Florida is a key state for Presidential aspirations due to the number of electoral votes it carries. So sugar has it's hand around the throat of American politics where sugar is concerned.

Below are just a couple of articles that will provide you with background on this information. To ask for a single factual source to back up this theory is naive, there is no such single source. I could also ask you to provide a factual source that refutes this theory, but that too would be naive because there isn't one.

However, you should be able to take the theor as I have laid it out above and refute it, if my theory is incorrect.

Now, I have given you my theory, and some background reading. If my theory is wrong - if the economics of sugar aren't influencing American policy towards Cuba - what is your theroy?

Simply put - why do you say we won't liberate Cuba but will liberate Iraq?

Believe it or not, I am actually listening with an open mind and not trying to beat anyone into accepting my theory.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/11705878.htm

http://www.afrocubaweb.com/cubambiz.htm

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/cubasi_article.asp?ArticleID=10

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...or29.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/29/ixworld.html

 

[Rebar]

What I am saying is that without the sugar monopoly, there is a very good chance that we would have liberated Cuba from oppression by Castro.

Where's the evidence? Can you name even one invasion plan after the bay of pigs that was scrapped due to "big sugar", or any other reason?

 

[butch50]

Rebar: Before I had finished my response (No. 73) I accidentally hit the respond key. I edited to leave a note that I wasn't finished - however you responded before I was finished (No. 74).

I am finished now with that response (No. 73), and I believe it makes a difference to your question (No 74). Please review (No. 73) and let me know if your above question stands or do you want to modify it?

Thanks
Butch

 

[Rebar]

You have forgotten that we had promised the Russians we wouldn't invade Cuba after the missile crisis.

Also, you're trying to link Cuba with Iraq, and I don't buy the premise for that. Iraq was in violaton of 14 UN resolutions, had used WMD, everyone thought they had current stockpiles of them, and were shooting at US aircraft on a daily basis, as well as supporting terrorists and destabilizing the region.

Cuba has a limited destabilizing effect in the region, but they're not building WMD, shooting at our aircraft, or paying the families of suicide bombers. By embagoing them, we can let them wither on the vine, because time isn't a factor like it was with Iraq.

As far a sugar, any country in the region either does, or can, make sugar, yet we don't feel the need to embargo or invade them. Here's a list of some producers:
http://www.acpsugar.org/Overview.html
none of which are embargoed.
In fact Mexico is a major sugar producer, with the passing of NAFTA, they can now import sugar duty-free, so much for the iron grip of those mean old rich people.

 

[butch50]

In fact Mexico is a major sugar producer, with the passing of NAFTA, they can now import sugar duty-free, so much for the iron grip of those mean old rich people.

NAFTA sugar provisions are far more complex, and limited, than your statement implies. It was set up to be spread out over a 15 year period, and would end with a maximum importation of 250,000 tons per year. Not really a significant factor.

The key ingredients NAFTA brought to this mixture were found in Article 303 and Annex 703.3. Article 303 banned the US sugar re export program. The Canadians had complained for years that US sugar producers were using the program to dump sugar into Canadian markets; this article would stop that practice. Annex 703.3 set out a 15 year plan to establish a common US–Mexico sugar market. Mexico agreed to stop floating its sugar tariffs based on the peso’s value relative to the US dollar by 2001. By 2004, it would also eliminate its 15% tariff on fructose syrup imports. The US agreed to eliminate its within quota tariff for Mexico and reduce its over quota tariff 15% by 2000. In 2001, Mexico’s within quota level would jump to 150 000 MT. The US would gradually lower its over quota tariff on Mexican sugar, and eliminate it by 2009. If Mexico became a net exporter of sugar to the US before 2000, its within quota level would rise to 25 000 MT. If Mexico achieved net exporter status for any two consecutive years, the over quota tariff would be immediately dropped, allowing Mexico to effectively export an unlimited amount of sugar to the US tariff free (MacMillan, 1992: 19–20). With these changes, and those already begun by CUSFTA, the creators of NAFTA hoped North America would have a common market in sugar by 2009.

CAFTA has even less impact than that:

Fact Sheet on Sugar in CAFTA-DR
01/26/2005

Sugar: Putting the CAFTA-DR into Perspective

Increased sugar market access for Central America and the Dominican Republic in the first year under the CAFTA-DR amounts to only a small portion of U.S. sugar production. The increased access is equal to little more than one day’s production in the United States.

In the first year, increased sugar market access for Central America and the Dominican Republic under the CAFTA-DR will amount to about 1.2 percent of current U.S. sugar consumption, growing very slowly over 15 years to about 1.7 percent of current consumption. Total U.S. sugar imports have declined by about one-third since the mid-1990s. Sugar imports under the CAFTA-DR would not come close to returning total U.S. sugar imports to those levels.

U.S. over-quota tariffs on sugar will not change under the CAFTA-DR. The U.S. over-quota tariff is prohibitive at well over 100 percent, one of the highest tariffs in the U.S. tariff schedule.

The United States will establish tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) for the Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. The quantity allowed under the TRQs is the lesser of the amount of each country’s net trade surplus in sugar or the specific amounts set out in each country’s TRQ. The maximum quantity for all of the countries is 107,000 metric tons in the first year. This maximum quantity will increase to 151,000 metric tons over 15 years. The United States will also establish a quota for specialty sugar goods of Costa Rica in the amount of 2,000 metric tons annually. To put these quantities in perspective, annual U.S. production in 2003/04 was about 7.8 million metric tons.

NAFTA and CAFTA are largely symbolic changes where sugar importation is concerned.

You have forgotten that we had promised the Russians we wouldn't invade Cuba after the missile crisis.

A promise from Kennedy to Kruschev, under duress at that. Kruschev said he would dismantle and remove nuclear missile sites if Kennedy promised, among other things, not to invade Cuba. That promise was kept under the context in which it was made. It was not a treaty made between the US and Cuba to not invade Cuba forever. That promise had a specific purpose and a finite life - both of which are complete.

Also, you're trying to link Cuba with Iraq, and I don't buy the premise for that. Iraq was in violaton of 14 UN resolutions, had used WMD, everyone thought they had current stockpiles of them, and were shooting at US aircraft on a daily basis, as well as supporting terrorists and destabilizing the region.

Conversely I don't buy that we invaded Iraq due to violations of UN resolutions, or because he had used WMDs, or because we thought he had WMDs, or because he was shooting at aircraft on a daily basis, etc....even Bush himself is now saying we invaded Iraq to get rid of a Dictator and to create a democracy.

Cuba has a limited destabilizing effect in the region, but they're not building WMD, shooting at our aircraft, or paying the families of suicide bombers. By embagoing them, we can let them wither on the vine, because time isn't a factor like it was with Iraq.

As far as I can tell Cuba has no destabilizing effect on the USA. And I agree that they are apparently not building WMD's, shooting down our aircraft, etc.... However, the embargo has failed to work now for over 40 years - an insanity plea could be made for continuing to use it when it hasn't shown any signs of effectiveness for that long. Why are we embargoing Cuba? If it is to get rid of Castro, we can do that in approximately 2 weeks with a well planned invasion.

As far a sugar, any country in the region either does, or can, make sugar, yet we don't feel the need to embargo or invade them. Here's a list of some producers:
http://www.acpsugar.org/Overview.html
none of which are embargoed.

Your reference here is to an article discussing countries trading sugar with the EU, not with the US.


I still do not see a rational basis, other than economic, for our continued embargo of Cuba, or our unwillingness to liberate the Cuban people who are under a brutal dictator 90 miles away.

 

[Rebar]

NAFTA and CAFTA are largely symbolic changes where sugar importation is concerned.

The point is, plenty of countries produce and export plenty of sugar, to state that we maintain the embargo to keep Cuba from selling sugar, when so many other sources of sugar exists, makes not one bit of sense.

I still do not see a rational basis, other than economic, for our continued embargo of Cuba, or our unwillingness to liberate the Cuban people who are under a brutal dictator 90 miles away.

The fact is, the average Cuban would not benefit in the slightest from the lifting of the embargo, only the corrupt elite would, and why reward them for being corrupt and human rights violators? As for invasion - it's not going to happen.

Conversely I don't buy that we invaded Iraq due to violations of UN resolutions, or because he had used WMDs, or because we thought he had WMDs, or because he was shooting at aircraft on a daily basis, etc....even Bush himself is now saying we invaded Iraq to get rid of a Dictator and to create a democracy.

Getting rid of Saddam was part of the reason, there were many good reasons for invading Iraq, among them the issues I listed. You not "buying" them is rediculous, shooting at our planes alone was a cause for war, that Saddam didn't let the inspectors do their jobs and provide an account of all WMD is another. There were a lot of reasons to invade Iraq, there are very few, if any, good reasons to invade Cuba.

This whole "we should invade Cuba because we invaded Iraq" nonsense is rediculous in the extreme. They are completely different issues, requiring completely different solutions.

 

[butch50]

The point is, plenty of countries produce and export plenty of sugar, to state that we maintain the embargo to keep Cuba from selling sugar, when so many other sources of sugar exists, makes not one bit of sense

You have a point. There are a lot of countries that export sugar. The USA however limits imports - so it doesn't matter. If we were to liberate Cuba, would we then embargo the one major product that they could use to re-build their country and their economy? Maybe, maybe not. It is worth considering that if we were to liberate them, that we would not limit the one effective export that they could generate to rebuild their economy, is it not?

The fact is, the average Cuban would not benefit in the slightest from the lifting of the embargo, only the corrupt elite would, and why reward them for being corrupt and human rights violators? As for invasion - it's not going to happen.

Isn't that tantamount to saying that free trade serves no purpose for other countries? If we were to lift the embargo, eventually the benefits would permeate to all levels - auto parts for just one instance. Have you seen how they keep their cars running? Are you also suggesting that the embargo has no impact on anyone except the elite? Can you substantiate that? It doesn't seem at all likely does it? Lifting the embargo would eventually permeate to all levels, such is economics. As for invasion - historically we have invaded Cuba numerous times, why not again?

Getting rid of Saddam was part of the reason, there were many good reasons for invading Iraq, among them the issues I listed. You not "buying" them is rediculous, shooting at our planes alone was a cause for war, that Saddam didn't let the inspectors do their jobs and provide an account of all WMD is another.

Stating that my beliefs are ridiculous isn't progressing the discusssion - do you have a rebuttal or are you simply going to call me names? How long were the Iraqi's shooting at our planes? You asked for substantiation, how about you providing the number of planes shot down and when, and compare those numbers and dates to when we invaded? Sadam didn't let the inspectors do their jobs was a cause for invasion? Sure it can be listed as a reason, but realistically how reasonable is it? I could list reasons that are more reasonable than that, but it doesn't mean they were the real reason does it?

This whole "we should invade Cuba because we invaded Iraq" nonsense is rediculous in the extreme. They are completely different issues, requiring completely different solutions.

First, my question is ~ I ask that if we are going to liberate a country on the far side of the globe, then why have we not liberated Cuba? I don't say that because we liberated Iraq that we should also liberate Cuba, but ask that if we are in the liberation mode, why not start 90 miles away instead of on the far side of the planet?

A simple question - Why should we not liberate Cuba?

 

[Wildalaska]

A simple question - Why should we not liberate Cuba?

Um...maybe becasue they are no threat to us, or even arguably a threat.....

WildordowejustattackonawhimAlaska