Gobama! Gobama! Yes! Ease Travel Restrictions to Cuba!

[sandinista]

thats all that can be said about that.

You won't answer the simple question, will you?

Would you rather live in Cuba or Canada?

I need more information than that if you want an answer. I've lived in both places, and right now (minus 30 and won't stop snowing) I would rather be living in Cuba.

Sounds good. Nothing is stopping you. You can go there. The State will take care of you - you'll have enough rice and beans to keep you alive, and you'll have the greatest health care system in the world (says you and zcommunications). So, go there and enjoy life in all its many splendors, in Cuba....why wouldn't you? After all, Canada and the US are just shams, and corporate dictatorships anyway - why would you want to live in either of these places?

What? Didn't like the answer? There are things stopping me, such as...work, family, responsibilities, etc. You may have those things too some day and know its not so easy to just up and move to another country.

[JimC]

CES wrote:

You are suggesting that a country where the vast majority of people are rationed rice and beans, can hardly put shoes on their children's feet, and view meat and veggies as luxuries is not a 3rd world hell hole of despair for the underclass? How do you think the average Cuban lives in Cuba? They go out to dinner a few times a month - take in a movie - go to Cuban Disneyland on vacation - bitch about their Netflix being late - and buy a new car every five years?

I am not suggesting it is a picnic, and not suggesting that some economic stimulus and free market ideas may not possibly raise the standard of living for many.

What I was saying, though, was that unlike many other countries in the region (eg. Haiti), there are not an underclass of starving, hopeless people with no chance of healthcare or social services. Cuba has no underclass, the dreadful reality of which is usually swept under the carpet when looking at their economies.

[Coito ergo sum]

Cuba has no underclass, the dreadful reality of which is usually swept under the carpet when looking at their economies.

Cuba is almost all underclass. It only has no underclass if you look at it relative only to other Cubans - anyone subsisting on daily rations of rice, and only able to get soap via rations, and after waiting in long lines - is underclass. Just because most everyone in Cuba is at that same level, except a few elite, doesn't make it good.

[Hermit]

Coito, I merely pointed to Sandinista saying "the US can't stand to have a country not do as they're told", and then asked you that by furnishing an example you agreed with that.

Oh - gotcha - well - here's the thing. Supporting democracy and democratic reforms is not an attempt to force a country to do what we wish them to do. It's supporting the right of Cuba to decide for itself who its leaders should be. Castro is not Cuba and - yes - the US opposes what Castro, an unelected totalitarian dictator who has ruled with an iron fist for 50 years.

Batista was not a dictator? The Revolt of the Sergeants was actually an election? So that's why the US administration placed no embargo on Cuba in 1933? Yes, I see where you're coming from, Coito.

Oh, wait. No, I don't.

• Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista - hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend - at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections. - John F. Kennedy

• I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear. - John F. Kennedy

Anyway, you plainly repeated what Sandinista has said:

The issue is that the US can't stand to have a country NOT do as their told

the policy of the US has been that the embargo would remain in place until Cuba made concrete moves toward democratization. And, a key factor here is that Cuba has not done so.

[sandinista]

Coito, I merely pointed to Sandinista saying "the US can't stand to have a country not do as they're told", and then asked you that by furnishing an example you agreed with that.

Oh - gotcha - well - here's the thing. Supporting democracy and democratic reforms is not an attempt to force a country to do what we wish them to do. It's supporting the right of Cuba to decide for itself who its leaders should be. Castro is not Cuba and - yes - the US opposes what Castro, an unelected totalitarian dictator who has ruled with an iron fist for 50 years.

Batista was not a dictator? The Revolt of the Sergeants was actually an election? So that's why the US administration placed no embargo on Cuba in 1933? Yes, I see where you're coming from, Coito.

Oh, wait. No, I don't.

• Fulgencio Batista murdered 20,000 Cubans in seven years ... and he turned Democratic Cuba into a complete police state - destroying every individual liberty. Yet our aid to his regime, and the ineptness of our policies, enabled Batista to invoke the name of the United States in support of his reign of terror. Administration spokesmen publicly praised Batista - hailed him as a staunch ally and a good friend - at a time when Batista was murdering thousands, destroying the last vestiges of freedom, and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from the Cuban people, and we failed to press for free elections. - John F. Kennedy

• I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear. - John F. Kennedy

Anyway, you plainly repeated what Sandinista has said:

The issue is that the US can't stand to have a country NOT do as their told

the policy of the US has been that the embargo would remain in place until Cuba made concrete moves toward democratization. And, a key factor here is that Cuba has not done so.

He agrees with me in principle, but feels the need to play devils advocate because of his misplaced, misguided hatred of Cuba. Funny though, the US supported Batista (dictator) but won't lift the embargo on Cuba till they "democratize". Plain BS, the US, as with many cases, simply can't stand another country not bowing down and licking their jackboots. As per usual the embargo has little to do with "dictator" this or "dictator" that, its more about whether or not the countries leader, regardless of how they came to power, kneels down to US dictates. Batista did...US happy to do business with him...Castro did not...embargo...not to mention assassination attempts and terrorism directed at Cuba.

[JimC]

Cuba has no underclass, the dreadful reality of which is usually swept under the carpet when looking at their economies.

Cuba is almost all underclass. It only has no underclass if you look at it relative only to other Cubans - anyone subsisting on daily rations of rice, and only able to get soap via rations, and after waiting in long lines - is underclass. Just because most everyone in Cuba is at that same level, except a few elite, doesn't make it good.

The underclass I am referring to are the extreme and utterly marginalised poor in other Carribean and South American countries. They would be absolutely delighted to live how the majority of Cubans do, rations or no rations... Cuba has at least managed to eliminate the exteme suffering of that sort of slum-dwelling underclass. It may well be likely that a more active economy will raise the low level of the majority, which would require both opening Cuba to the west, and political changes within. However, this does not alter the value of what they have achieved in eliminating extreme poverty.

[Hermit]

the US, as with many cases, simply can't stand another country not bowing down and licking their jackboots. As per usual the embargo has little to do with "dictator" this or "dictator" that, its more about whether or not the countries leader, regardless of how they came to power, kneels down to US dictates.

That's pretty much the size of it, and the dictates are authored by American companies who want to squeeze money out of consumers. Even too much of it is not enough. Look at the "Golden Phone", for example:

• In a manner that antagonized the Cuban people, the U.S. government used their influence to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies, which "dominated the island's economy." As a symbol of this relationship, ITT Corporation, an American-owned multinational telephone company, presented Batista with a gold-plated telephone, as an "expression of gratitude" for the "excessive telephone rate increase" which Batista had granted at the urging of the U.S. government. (link)

But of course, the principle of democratisation is very close to the US administrations' heart. Always has been. That is why none of them have ever had a hand in overthrowing democratically elected governments, or supported dictatorial ones in other countries, have they? And I am sure this principled stance will never change as long as the USA is the land of the free.

[charlou]

Booming economy for who? Yes, the Cuban people are better off now than with the other "dictator" the US supported, that bloodthirsty Batista. Fuck "the economy", and your religion of "the market"...ludicrous, juvenile and naive.

Not a chance you can win on that one. The Cuban people are not at all better off. You'd like to think so, because that's what your philosophy is supposed to do, make the common person better off. The common person in Cuba lives in squalor right now, much worse than in 1955.

bullshit...and I'd say "you know that", but you don't.

obviously, from your childlike, juvenile posts you've never been to Cuba or talked to any Cubans in Cuba. I have and can say that the people I have spoken too would disagree with you on pretty much all your nonsense.

Couldn't let this one go...for humor sake

coito:

Since 1992, the policy of the US has been that the embargo would remain in place until Cuba made concrete moves toward democratization. And, a key factor here is that Cuba has not done so.

democratization coming from the US..hahahaha. I like that, a two party corporate system telling someone else to " democratize". Classic. Maybe when you finish high school you'll see the problem with that.

Our guidelines.

sandanista, please just debate the topic and refrain from making personalised comments. Cheers.

[Coito ergo sum]

He agrees with me in principle, but feels the need to play devils advocate because of his misplaced, misguided hatred of Cuba. Funny though, the US supported Batista (dictator) but won't lift the embargo on Cuba till they "democratize". Plain BS, the US, as with many cases, simply can't stand another country not bowing down and licking their jackboots. As per usual the embargo has little to do with "dictator" this or "dictator" that, its more about whether or not the countries leader, regardless of how they came to power, kneels down to US dictates. Batista did...US happy to do business with him...Castro did not...embargo...not to mention assassination attempts and terrorism directed at Cuba.

I don't hate Cuba. I like Cuba. That's why I want the embargo lifted.

You still haven't even explained why you want the embargo lifted, given your disdain for free enterprise and the fact that you feel things are very good in Cuba - awesome health care, people have all they need, and you as a Canadian see little difference in Canadian life and Cuban life such that you'd just as well live in Cuba than Canada.

The embargo is not about licking boots. It is about the fact that Castro took power by force and has never been elected - he is not "Cuba's leader." He is a dictator imposed on Cuba by force. For folks to consider that just "another country's choice" of a leader ignores the fact that they never had that choice. Don't you think they should have that choice? Even assuming the US is "jackbooted" (Nazi), as you suggest - shouldn't the Cuban people be able to choose to have Castro or not have Castro?

I would be all in favor of the embargo if it would work to unseat Castro - but 50 years later, it's pretty clear it hasn't and it won't. It's time to do something to benefit the Cuban people. That is the best way for Cubans to get the chance to throw off the monstrous regime that has trodden on the necks of the people for 5 decades.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I merely pointed to Sandinista saying "the US can't stand to have a country not do as they're told", and then asked you that by furnishing an example you agreed with that.

Oh - gotcha - well - here's the thing. Supporting democracy and democratic reforms is not an attempt to force a country to do what we wish them to do. It's supporting the right of Cuba to decide for itself who its leaders should be. Castro is not Cuba and - yes - the US opposes what Castro, an unelected totalitarian dictator who has ruled with an iron fist for 50 years.

Batista was not a dictator? The Revolt of the Sergeants was actually an election? So that's why the US administration placed no embargo on Cuba in 1933? Yes, I see where you're coming from, Coito.

Hey - Britain dealt with Hitler in 1938 and achieved "Peace in Our Time" by breaking treaties with its allies and handing over other people's countries to Hitler. I don't suggest that British folks need to side with that course of action in order to be against oppression and totalitarianism today.

I am against totalitarianism. I am in favor of republicanism, and popular democracy with adequate protection for individual human rights. Regardless of what happened in 1938 - today, Cuba is governed by a totalitarian regime and there are no protections for individual human rights. I don't need to be in favor of US foreign policy in relation to Cuba in the 1930's, 40s, or 50s in order to oppose Castro's Cuba. Maybe you do, but I don't.

Anyway, you plainly repeated what Sandinista has said:

The issue is that the US can't stand to have a country NOT do as their told

the policy of the US has been that the embargo would remain in place until Cuba made concrete moves toward democratization. And, a key factor here is that Cuba has not done so.

I'm going to say it for a third time: supporting democratization is not "demanding that another country do as we say." A country under totalitarian rule HAS NO SAY! We need not support the right of dictators to be totalitarian rulers. Castro is not Cuba.

This is the nonsense view that pervades much of modern political thought these days - the idea that a totalitarian dictatorship is just another form of government that a country might choose. We choose a constitutionally limited Republic - France chooses a popular republic - North Korea chooses a totalitarian necrocracy and Cuba chooses a totalitarian dictator for 5 decades. Of course, if we say to Kim Jong Il and Castro - we want you to give the people a choice, in the mind of some that's "telling North Korea and Kim Jong Il what to do." Please.... next thing you'll tell me you oppose the Britain's historical entry into World War 2 because the Poles and the French got to choose Nazi rule - not up to the allies to make them lick allied jack boots, right?

[Hermit]

The embargo is not about licking boots. It is about the fact that Castro took power by force and has never been elected - he is not "Cuba's leader." He is a dictator imposed on Cuba by force.

Unlike Batista? See above.

[Coito ergo sum]

thats all that can be said about that.

You won't answer the simple question, will you?

Would you rather live in Cuba or Canada?

I need more information than that if you want an answer. I've lived in both places, and right now (minus 30 and won't stop snowing) I would rather be living in Cuba.

Sounds good. Nothing is stopping you. You can go there. The State will take care of you - you'll have enough rice and beans to keep you alive, and you'll have the greatest health care system in the world (says you and zcommunications). So, go there and enjoy life in all its many splendors, in Cuba....why wouldn't you? After all, Canada and the US are just shams, and corporate dictatorships anyway - why would you want to live in either of these places?

What? Didn't like the answer? There are things stopping me, such as...work, family, responsibilities, etc. You may have those things too some day and know its not so easy to just up and move to another country.

But, you don't need a job in Cuba, right? Free health care - free rationed food - free education - everything free. It's Shangri-la.

Once again - you have to personalize a discussion. It's obvious you've got that "I've gone to a couple years of college, so I know it all" mentality -- you're a cliche'.

[Coito ergo sum]

The embargo is not about licking boots. It is about the fact that Castro took power by force and has never been elected - he is not "Cuba's leader." He is a dictator imposed on Cuba by force.

Unlike Batista? See above.

Why does Batista matter? So, is your argument - "Batista was a horrible dictator, therefore we ought to let Castro do whatever he wants?" Are you suggesting that because US foreign policy in relation to Cuba was wrong in the mid-20th century, that we ought not try to do the right thing now?

I reiterate again, Britain dealt with Hitler in 1938 and brought back "peace in our time" by throwing allies under the bus, handing them over to the Nazi regime. Guess once they did that there was no going back - can't take action against any dictators and in favor of the people of any subjugated country, because of their actions then. And, Britain was an Empire through most of the 20th century - itself subjugating people under colonial rule - guess Britain ought never do the right thing, and try to help countries get out from under a Castro or a Kim Jong Il, right?

[Hermit]

The embargo is not about licking boots. It is about the fact that Castro took power by force and has never been elected - he is not "Cuba's leader." He is a dictator imposed on Cuba by force.

Unlike Batista? See above.

Why does Batista matter? So, is your argument - "Batista was a horrible dictator, therefore we ought to let Castro do whatever he wants?" Are you suggesting that because US foreign policy in relation to Cuba was wrong in the mid-20th century, that we ought not try to do the right thing now?

No. I am suggesting that - to use Sandinista's words - the US can't stand to have a country not do as they're told. The embargo has nothing to do with Castro being a dictator. If it had, the US administration would have embargoed Cuba when Batista became its dictator. Furthermore, if US administrations had been concerned about democracy in other countries, they would not have given so much wholehearted support to so many dictators (like Batista), nor would they have had such a decisive hand in overthrowing democratically elected governments of other nations. This applied when the embargo was started, and nothing has changed since then.

[Coito ergo sum]

The embargo is not about licking boots. It is about the fact that Castro took power by force and has never been elected - he is not "Cuba's leader." He is a dictator imposed on Cuba by force.

Unlike Batista? See above.

Why does Batista matter? So, is your argument - "Batista was a horrible dictator, therefore we ought to let Castro do whatever he wants?" Are you suggesting that because US foreign policy in relation to Cuba was wrong in the mid-20th century, that we ought not try to do the right thing now?

No. I am suggesting that - to use Sandinista's words - the US can't stand to have a country not do as they're told. The embargo has nothing to do with Castro being a dictator. If it had, the US administration would have embargoed Cuba when Batista became its dictator. Furthermore, if US administrations had been concerned about democracy in other countries, they would not have given so much wholehearted support to so many dictators (like Batista), nor would they have had such a decisive hand in overthrowing democratically elected governments of other nations. This applied when the embargo was started, and nothing has changed since then.

We're not talking about a "country" doing this or that here. The embargo was enacted when CASTRO led an armed force that took control of Cuba by force and seized assets of American citizens. It has EVERYTHING to do with Castro being a dictator.

Perhaps it should have embargoed Cuba when Batista was in power. But, whether or not that's true, it doesn't make Castro any less of a dictator or thug.

But, anyway - the embargo ought to be lifted, right? We likely agree on that. You'll have to let me know.

We can talk all day about the bad shit countries have done. We can discuss Britain's role in overthrowing Mossadegh in Iran, and it's conquest of half of Africa, it's theft of priceless artifacts in Egypt and in Greece....we can discuss how Britain is the cause of all the middle eastern strife, since it spearheaded the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I - and simply chose for the Arabs where Jordan would be, and where Iraq would be, etc. We can talk about French Africa and the murderous slaughter of Africans at French hands, and the "support of dictators" by both the French and the British throughout Africa and the middle east. We can talk about French support of dictators in the Ivory Coast and in Rwanda. Like Operation Turquoise in 1994 where the French assisted in the escape of the French-backed and equipped perpetrators who initiated the Hutu-Tutsi genocide that claimed 800,000 lives. The French government also provided transport and de facto sanctuary for Agathe Kanziga (wife of the Rwandan dictator) and her entourage who were involved in the genocide. The French supported dictators in "French Indochina" too.

I guess, then, there is no way the French or Brits can ever be concerned with democracy and human rights - there is no way they can ever oppose a dictator - after all - they committed some of the worst atrocities of the 20th centuries. Right?