Cuba Embargo

iron81 · #1 08-21-2007, 04:29 PM

This has bugged me for a while, but it came up today when I heard that the Miami herald published an Obama op-ed piece criticizing the Bush Admin's recent tightening of the embargo. The fact of the matter is, Castro is way down on the brutal dictator list and Cuba isn't even close to deserving the treatment we heap on them (travel ban, remittance restrictions, trade ban).

On top of this, its become increasingly obvious that sanctions don't work to cause regime changes. Also the primary reason for the embargo, Castro hatred among Cuban expats, is weakenig. I don't know if Obama has a "Nixon goes to China" moment in him, but he's our best shot.

pvn · #2 08-21-2007, 04:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if Obama has a "Nixon goes to China" moment in him, but he's our best shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul?

iron81 · #3 08-21-2007, 04:45 PM

PVN, Most likely to execute instead of most likely to support.

WW, I was thinking specificially in terms of sanctions on other countries, NK and Iraq are two easy ones.

zasterguava · #4 08-21-2007, 06:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
PVN, Most likely to execute instead of most likely to support.

WW, I was thinking specificially in terms of sanctions on other countries, NK and Iraq are two easy ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is my reading comprehension out here or are you suggesting that it is possible, if not likely, Ron Paul would call for the execution of Castro? Or are you merely stating chances of him supporting Castro are so slim that execution is slightly less unrealistic?

iron81 · #5 08-21-2007, 06:26 PM

I meant execute=implement a reconciliation policy.

WordWhiz · #6 08-21-2007, 04:45 PM

"On top of this, its become increasingly obvious that sanctions don't work to cause regime changes."

Yeah, increasingly obvious. After 20 years of sanctions failed to topple Castro, it was still iffy. After 30, the evidence got a bit clearer. 40 years and people with two brain cells to rub together started thinking that perhaps Castro was here to stay. But now, after 47 years, and Castro on his death bed, we've finally gotten to this point where letting people visit and send money to their relatives slightly more often is even on the political table. What a country!

TheRedRocket · #7 08-21-2007, 04:53 PM

Has there been anything studied or written about whether having an embargo against a place like Cuba acts as a deterrent to other nations in the US's sphere of influence to attaining similar adverse status? If so that could be a valid reason for keeping it place even if its not effective in terms of regime change and other overtly stated purposes.

It does however seem as though this is remnant of the cold war and due for some reevaluation especially if Cuba would become a profitable trading partner for the US businesses.

AzDesertRat · #8 08-21-2007, 04:54 PM

should have invaded Cuba instead of Iraq to get rid of this problem. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

boracay · #9 08-23-2007, 06:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
should have invaded Cuba instead of Iraq to get rid of this problem. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

do you support terrorism or just have double standards?

SNOWBALL · #10 08-23-2007, 07:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Has there been anything studied or written about whether having an embargo against a place like Cuba acts as a deterrent to other nations in the US's sphere of influence to attaining similar adverse status? If so that could be a valid reason for keeping it place even if its not effective in terms of regime change and other overtly stated purposes.

[/ QUOTE ]

ugh

The US government has no right to tell americans where they can and can't go and who they can and can't trade with.

The idea of doing stuff like this to keep other countries "in line" is even worse.

imperialism is bad, mmmkay?