Cuba's army.

[Rebar]

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?

I don't know, that's a whole different issue. You seem to have given up the argument that it's sugar which keeps the US from attacking Cuba, so that's progress.

Isn't that tantamount to saying that free trade serves no purpose for other countries?

That Cuba is run by a cleptocratic socialist thug seems to have eluded you. The economy, or what's left of it, is entirely at the service of the elites, who steal the vast majority of it. During the cold war, the Soviets bought all Cuba's sugar, as well as sent massive subsidies, yet the average guy was still poor, because the elites pocketed the wealth. If the embargo was dropped while these same theives were still in power, why should the result be any different?

Stating that my beliefs are ridiculous isn't progressing the discusssion

It's rediculous when the evidence to the contrary is common knowledge:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

A simple question - Why should we not liberate Cuba?

Why didn't we help the Hungarians in 1956? Why didn't we help the Czechs in 1968? Why did we liberate France in 1944, but left Spain under facist rule? Why didn't we push the Soviets out of Eastern Europe like Patton wanted to do, and save the world from 40 years of the cold war?

There are thousands of times where an opportunity exisited when America could have invaded and liberated a country, and we didn't. The why is easy to explain: at the time the President didn't think it in our interests to do so. Obviously Bush doesn't think it in our interests to, without provocation or need, invade Cuba. Niether did Clinton, or Bush I, or Reagan, or Carter, or Nixon, or Johnson. I can think of a dozen reasons why it would be a bad idea, and I'm sure there are plenty more. Bush thought it was in our national interests to invade Iraq, he plainy stated the reasons.

This notion that not invading Cuba, and/or North Korea, and/or Syria, and/or wherever, somehow delegitimizes the invasion of Iraq is actually quite silly. It's based on the false premise that if we help one, we have to help everyone, "all-or-nothing". I reject that argument. We can help one country, and not another, as we determine what our needs and resources allow.

 

[butch50]

Cuba is only 90 miles away, has an evil dictator that oppresses good people with a miltary that our military could eliminate quickly and with low casualties. The Cuban people's culture is nearly identical to ours, and all in all they are a fine people indeed who would be grateful to be handed a democracy. That puts Cuba into a singular category, and makes it difficult to compare to other countries that we have or have not liberated. It begs a large question though, why travel around the globe liberating people while ignoring our very close evil dictator neighbor?

One answer given by rebar is: at the time the President didn't think it in our interests to do so. The problem with that answer is that it isn't a specific answer. Any lack of action at any level by anyone on any subject can be answered with that sentence, but it doesn't specifically advance the discussion. Why doesn't he think it is not in our interests?

An answer given by Wildalaska: Because they are not a threat is a specfic answer that does advance the discussion. My response to that is that I agree, Cuba is not a threat, but it is incredible to me that we allow an evil dictator who is militarily weak to inhumanely reign 90 miles away without our intervention; said intervention being based on liberating good people. Castro stands for everything we stand against, doesn't he?

The only reason I can fathom is that it is about money. Where Cuba is concerned money = sugar. Where sugar is concerned, keeping the import quota where it is serves the vested interest of sugar. Sugar has a strong grip on DC. That makes me suspicious of sugar as being responsible for our not liberating good people 90 miles away.

Lifting the embargo - Rebar says it won't affect the populace at large, only the dictator clique. Is that really true? Then why do we trade with the Peoples Republic of China and the Peoples Republic of Vietnam to name but two?

Conversely, we do know for a fact, that the embargo has not served it's intended purpose for over 40 years now, so why do we persist with it? If you are working on a car that won't run, you don't keep replacing the coil over and over and over if it doesn't fix the car - you try something else, right? Why haven't we lifted the embargo to see what happened? We could always reimpose it if we discoverd it was making things worse for the Cuban people, right?

There must be a reason we have kept a non-functioning embargo in place for over 40 years, right? What could that reason possibly be?

 

[Wildalaska]

My response to that is that I agree, Cuba is not a threat, but it is incredible to me that we allow an evil dictator who is militarily weak to inhumanely reign 90 miles away without our intervention; said intervention being based on liberating good people. Castro stands for everything we stand against, doesn't he?

Well there it is. he isnt a threat. We just dont go invading countries that arent a threat do we (or do we). Big sugar, small suger, any suger, makes no differece.
Like I said, if the embargo was lifted, he'd be gone.

WildsimpleanswerAlaska

 

[Rebar]

...but it doesn't specifically advance the discussion.

We're going around in circles, because of your failure to back up your statements.

I gave ample reasons why sugar isn't a factor in the continued Cuban embargo. You, however, continue to proclaim that it is despite a complete lack of evidence, and against all common sense.

It's on you to provide proof that it is fear of a massive sugar surplus triggered by the end of the embargo which is the primary reason for maintaining the embargo. That dispite the world is awash with sugar from dozens of countries, the addition of Cuban sugar will somehow cause the collapse of big American sugar companies, what is your explanation how this could happen.

And I mean proof, not this "what else could it be?" nonsense.

 

[butch50]

Well there it is. he isnt a threat. We just dont go invading countries that arent a threat do we (or do we). Big sugar, small suger, any suger, makes no differece.
Like I said, if the embargo was lifted, he'd be gone.

Why yes, we do invade countries that are not a threat - but we do generally hide under the cover of saying they are (or were) a threat. The Phillipines, North Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Iraq were not threats to us. Don't forget we have invaded Cuba several times in the past. As well. I would like to see the embargo lifted, I think it might do some damage to Castro and some good to the Cuban people. However Rebar has the opposite opinion, and that opinion appears to be popluar, else we would lift it, right?

It's on you to provide proof that it is fear of a massive sugar surplus triggered by the end of the embargo which is the primary reason for maintaining the embargo.

I think I told you already that there is no proof - how could there be proof? That is a rather tired tactic, to demand proof when there can be none. It is a theory you see. Conversely as I have also said, there is no proof that it isn't sugar either, because that is a theory also . I am not demanding that you show me a document that says "It has now therefore been proven that the reason we don't invade Cuba is because of the sugar industry's huge political contributions to both parties."
That would be a false and unreasonable method of debate. Show me your logic that it ins't sugar and we have a discussion.

I gave ample reasons why sugar isn't a factor in the continued Cuban embargo. You, however, continue to proclaim that it is despite a complete lack of evidence, and against all common sense.

OK: Sugar imports into the USA are strictly controlled to maintain an artificially inflated price. This artificial "scarcity" is for the benefit of a very few people who control the sugar industry in the US. They have very strong incentives, monetary incentives, to maintain the artificially inflated prices that bring in tens of millions of dollars in extra profit every year to them. Cuba used to be a major sugar supplier. If the importation limits of sugar were maintained after Cuba was liberated, then no harm to sugar industry. But, if those import quotas were lifted?

Sugar interests have managed to keep the artificially high price of sugar going for these many decades because there has been no strong political reason for the fat politicians to turn away the free money they get every year. But, if Cuba was liberated and needed to export sugar to the USA to get on it's feet, one might theorize that the Cuban expatriates, and the good will of the fine American people, could overcome sugar's money - especially since that good will towards Cuba would also mean a lowering of consumer costs on so many sugar laden products.

 

[Rebar]

Your theory simply is not supportable.

First, Cuba already sells it's sugar to the world market, at world market prices.

Second, America is a major sugar exporter in it's own right, so how much of a market can there possibly be for Cuban sugar.

Third, since there are import restrictions bringing sugar into America already, even lifting the embargo won't make a difference, Cuba would still have to sell it's crop to the world market.

If for whatever reason America stopped the embargo and dropped it's import restrictions, we'd be buying at the world market price, so Cuba would see no difference in income.

Simple economics and common sense clearly points out that sugar is hardly a "magic bullet" out of poverty for Cuba, embargo or no, import restrictions or no.

I can't see any possibly reason whatsoever for any American sugar producer being afraid of Cuban sugar, especially since it's already in the world market and has been for decades. I can see them being afraid of lifting the import restrictions, but only because of the massive production of sugar from dozens of countries flooding the market, of which Cuban would be only a small part.

 

[cuate]

If communism is so great, why did it fail in Russia? How many Russian starved to death and how many murdered by the communist government? What about the Gulags and why were so many sent to wqork and die in the cold for reasons other than criminal activity?

If Mao's communism was so great, why is China changing to private ownership of property like businesses, autos, homes, farms and so on? Its slow but it is happening.

What happened to East Germany, Czchloslovakia, Yugoslavia, and the USSRs former captives? What king of almost third world had France and Britain become under socialism?

And certain Americans are trying to turn our dear, great Republic into the same quagmire continually, 50% of the general population goes along with it. Northeast USA,
Pacific USA, and Great Lakes USA. The Judicial branch is tainted, the House somewhat, ditto the US Senate.

 

[butch50]

Your theory simply is not supportable.First, Cuba already sells it's sugar to the world market, at world market prices.

Yes, Cuba does sell sugar to the world market. Recently though Cuba has been cutting it's production down due to the depressed prices on the world market. In short, sugar has not been profitable recently for Cuba. In no small part due to the twin facts that world sugar prices are low and Cuba has to import it's oil. Oil of course costing more each passing year (day now).

Second, America is a major sugar exporter in it's own right, so how much of a market can there possibly be for Cuban sugar.

America limits the amount of sugar that can be imported, and importation of sugar from Cuba could be a threat to the sugar industry, if the quotas were relaxed for Cuba. Additionally the Fanjul brother happen to own most of the sugar that is imported, coming in from the Dominican Republic - so importation of sugar could be a double threat to them.

If for whatever reason America stopped the embargo and dropped it's import restrictions, we'd be buying at the world market price, so Cuba would see no difference in income.

I can't see any possibly reason whatsoever for any American sugar producer being afraid of Cuban sugar, especially since it's already in the world market and has been for decades. I can see them being afraid of lifting the import restrictions, but only because of the massive production of sugar from dozens of countries flooding the market, of which Cuban would be only a small part.

Yes, but think of the money that sugar industry would lose if we dropped the import quotas - the Fanjul brothers would lose an estimated $65 million per year. If liberating Cuba was to cause the US to eliminate the artificial import quotas for everyone it would be a very expensive blow to the current sugar moguls.

If we liberate Cuba, will we eliminate the sugar importation quota so that Cuba could trade effectively with the US? If so, that's a major loss for big sugar. Liberation of Cuba, or ending the embargo, could be the key that unlocks the importation quotas.

Or, if we liberate Cuba, would we give preferential treatment to Cuba and allow them unlimited sugar exports to the US? Cuba has the potential to export large quantities, another loss for big sugar.

I think it may be what could happen as a consequence of liberating Cuba or it's economy via lifting the embargo, that big sugar may be trying to head off. I can think of no other logical reason to maintain the embargo, or to not liberate them.

 

[Nighthawk1983]

A simple question - Why should we not liberate Cuba?

One word. Haiti. If you think Cuba is a "festering dungheap" you should take a look at its far worse off neighbors. Haiti is the biggest, festering dungheap in the world, inspite of it being a "democracy"; the prime reason Haitian refugees where sent back home to having their skulls clubbed in while we took in all those "impoverished, oppressed Cubans" no questions asked; which resulted in an extremely active and thriving drug port o call in Florida. Sure many intellectuals may have left, but so did all the gangsters, criminals, and thugs, coming to our country to wreak havoc. Jamaica and the Dominican Republic aren't much better off, the resorts might as well be treated the same as embassies; US soil on foreign land. The only islands that are better off are those still mandated and supported as territories or colonies like the Virgin Islands, Bahamas, and Puerto Rico. There's no need to liberate the Cubans. The people living there can and have had the chance to leave but many didn't. Many of them would be very angry about an invasion on their homeland. Castro and communism are far from savory characters but its working for Cuba, just as its working for China. Cuba is far better off than a lot of its Caribbean neighbors and thats the scope that it needs to be compared to. Listening to the opinions of a few embittered exiles about Cuba and forming a judgement is the same as listening to terrorist criminals in Iraq and making judgements about the US Military based on them.

 

[JohnKSa]

we do invade countries that are not a threat

Clearly the U.S. doesn't have to be under direct threat to invade. It's sufficient that an ally be under threat. Furthermore, simply because a threat to us or our ally is not immediately obvious to the casual observer is no evidence that no threat exists.

The statement is false. At the very least, it is unsupportable.

People believe what they want to. Reality is out there for the people who have an interest in truly understanding the situation. In fact, we live in an era of unprecedented information availability. In just a few seconds, anyone with a computer and access to the web can "mine" a huge amount of information on virtually any topic. That resource is largely wasted because most people prefer to only gather evidence that supports their own established belief structure.

Classic example:

In theory there's no crime (in communism) because everything is owned by everyone and there's no need for crime.

This HAS to be someone simply parroting something they've heard because it only takes an tiny amount of critical thought to pop this bubble. Clearly, eliminating private property can not eliminate crime because not all crimes are property crimes.

People ask the wrong questions and therefore get the wrong answers.

Instead of beginning with the assumption that we invade countries that are no threat--an illogical and unsupportable allegation--the question should be: What is the difference between Cuba and a country the U.S. has invaded?

 

[Rebar]

if the quotas were relaxed for Cuba

if we dropped the import quotas

If we liberate Cuba

If so, that's a major loss for big sugar.

So many ifs, that your theory has reached the level of science fiction. Actually, I've seen more plausable stuff on the SciFi channel.

Someday Cuba will be free. When it is, there's no way that it will get preferental treatment for it's suger or tobacco from the United States. Besides our own producers screaming bloody murder, so would Mexico and all the other sugar producers.

Why should Cuba get any special treatment? There are many poor nations in the world, many of them are sugar producers who would would like nothing more than a special deal from us. We'll either maintain the current system, or drop them altogether. Cuba will have to sell at the world market price regardless.

So this theory that if embargo will drop, then Cuba will get some kind of special deal to sell sugar in unlimited quantities to America, at an above-market price, is just pure fantasy. Certainly no one in the American sugar industry could consider it a threat. A real threat, one I'm sure they are taking seriously, is dropping the import quotas altogether, and letting sugar prices get to the world market level. In that case Cuban production will be a drop in the bucket, and at the world market price.

No, you'll have to come up with a better theory than "big sugar" I'm afraid.

 

[Wildalaska]

Why yes, we do invade countries that are not a threat - but we do generally hide under the cover of saying they are (or were) a threat. The Phillipines, North Korea, Viet Nam, Panama, Iraq were not threats to us.

.

With all due repect, time to hit the history books

WildthisisgettinsillynowAlaska

 

[CarbineCaleb]

it is incredible to me that we allow an evil dictator who is militarily weak to inhumanely reign 90 miles away without our intervention;

At least from the history that I know, if you remove the rhetoric of the politicians regarding our motives, there is only one intervention that we did for someone else's sake - the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War. We didn't even intervene during World War II when the Nazis were sweeping through Europe. It was only when we were ourselves attacked that we got militarily involved.

I definitely don't think that the US is the only country that pursues foreign policy on the basis of self-interest, I think that's the norm worldwide. I don't think we are any exception to that norm, however. During the Cold War for example, we supported many brutal dictatorships if it was strategic for us in our ideological struggle with the Russians (consider Liberia for one - a country founded from US refugees).

In my opinion, politicians use a lot of high rhetoric to motivate the people internally and provide diplomatic cover externally. However, foreign policies are decided based on cold calculations of self interest.

 

[Redworm]

This HAS to be someone simply parroting something they've heard because it only takes an tiny amount of critical thought to pop this bubble. Clearly, eliminating private property can not eliminate crime because not all crimes are property crimes.

Oops, good point. I should've clarified that. If there's no personal property and everything is shared then there's no need for theft. That's what I meant to point out.

Now granted if people who don't want to share have to live in that society then there's going to be theft. But in theory if the only people living in communism are the ones that want communism then everything should be kosher. But again, the problem lies in the leaders that implement the system, not in the system itself.

 

[butch50]

No, you'll have to come up with a better theory than "big sugar" I'm afraid.

I can't come up with a better theory, that's the problem. I can't understand why we tolerate Castro 90 miles away. It doesn't make any rational sense to me at all. If it isn't sugar money, and it may well not be, then what pray tell is it? I am listening......

With all due repect, time to hit the history books

Here we reach a difference of opinion. I can say this, you can say that, I can rebut that and you can rebut this; and ultimately we will both be left thinking that the other just isn't paying attention - or doesn't want to bend, or doesn't seem to grasp the very basics. That can become a pointless and fruitless exercise for both of us. Let's just say that we disagree on the utility to the USA of those wars. Because the bottom line is - it is a side issue to why the greatest military power in the history of the world leaves a despotic and evil dictator in power 90 miles away.

 

[CarbineCaleb]

I can't come up with a better theory, that's the problem. I can't understand why we tolerate Castro 90 miles away. It doesn't make any rational sense to me at all. If it isn't sugar money, and it may well not be, then what pray tell is it? I am listening......

You can't just make war on every country. Even if we care about noone but ourselves, not only is it expensive and a lot of work, but it wouldn't be real popular. Just because we have a large military and advanced weapons doesn't mean we should exercise them everywhere we'd like to see some change. What countries do that? Now I am listening

 

[butch50]

It would be like swatting a mosquito. We most certainly have the capacity of arms, and of thought to do the job. Historically, and recently, we have done far more for far less reason.

 

[JohnKSa]

in theory if the only people living in communism are the ones that want communism then everything should be kosher

The same could be said of any socio-economic system. e.g. If the only people living in an oppressive orwellian dictatorship are the ones that want to live in an oppressive orwellian dictatorship then everyone would be happy.

Theory is all well and good, the problem with many theories (communism being a prime example) is that they don't properly take into account human nature.

People don't want to share, people don't want to get along. If they wanted to share and get along they'd do it regardless of the socio-economic system they found themselves in. Since it is abundantly obvious (just watch the news) that people, left to themselves, do not share and get along, that SHOULD be ample evidence that a system based on the premise of sharing and getting along is doomed to failure.

 

[johnbt]

Why not 'liberate' Cuba?

Because it provides a living example to the rest of the hemisphere - do you want to live like that under a repressive dictator?

John

 

[butch50]

Ineresting.....

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 · Last updated 4:07 p.m. PT

U.S. unlikely to accept Cuba's aid offer

By GEORGE GEDDA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Doctors offered by Cuba to help attend Katrina's victims probably won't be needed because the supply of U.S. physicians is adequate, the State Department suggested Tuesday.

Officially, the U.S. is undecided about the offer by Cuban President Fidel Castro, with whom the United States lacks full diplomatic relations. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack held open the possibility that the offer could be acted on if the need grew.

About 12,000 U.S. medical professionals have volunteered for duty in the affected areas. An appeal for help from the Department of Health and Human Services "has seen a robust response from the American medical community," McCormack said.

"In the event there are needs, we will look for every available source," he said. "We haven't ruled anyone out. This is going to be a long, long process."

Aid offers have poured in from about 90 countries.

The U.S.-Cuba Sister Cities Association, a pro-Cuba group based in Pittsburgh, said the United States has rejected the offer from Castro. But Cuban Foreign Ministry spokesman Jose Luis Ponce said Tuesday night that Cuba has yet to receive a response.

Ponce said 1,586 Cuban doctors are "ready to go." He spoke to The Associated Press in Montego Bay, Jamaica, where Castro was attending an oil conference.

Only on rare occasions over the 46 years of Castro's rule have there been examples of U.S.-Cuban cooperation. One was the U.S. return to Cuba in 2000 of Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy who was at the center of a custody war between his Miami relatives and his family in Cuba. The Clinton administration agreed with Castro that the boy should be returned to the island.

U.S. assistance programs for Cuba over the decades have been nonexistent except for those directed at Castro's enemies there. U.S. offers of humanitarian relief for droughts or other disasters in Cuba have been routinely rejected by Castro.

The Cuban leader went out of his way Sunday to show that his offer was serious. He summoned candidates for the proposed U.S. mission to a conference center in Havana and told them about the important work they could do if the U.S. government accepts the offer.

"You honor the medical profession," Castro told them.

"If in the end a response never arrives, or if the help isn't necessary, there will be no disappointment in our ranks," he said. "On the contrary, we will be satisfied that we have fulfilled our duty."