Obama to make announcement on Cuba policy at 12est

[fskimospy]

Dumb.

For one thing that was 1972. Feel free to look up my posts back.

I was too young and don't remember it. But a quick look at google indicates that the China deal is very substantially different than Cuba. Google claims major foreign policy benefits etc.

So far no one has been able to identify any significant benefits to the US with a Cuban deal.

Fern

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/w...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

 

[sunzt]

Dumb.

For one thing that was 1972. Feel free to look up my posts back.

I was too young and don't remember it. But a quick look at google indicates that the China deal is very substantially different than Cuba. Google claims major foreign policy benefits etc.

So far no one has been able to identify any significant benefits to the US with a Cuban deal.

Fern

CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo

Ending the embargo would have obvious economic benefits for both Cubans and Americans. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates American losses alone from the embargo as much as $1.2 billion annually.

Expanding economic opportunities also might increase pressure within Cuba for further economic reform. So far the regime has taken small steps, but rejected significant change. Moreover, thrusting more Americans into Cuban society could help undermine the ruling system.
...

Lifting sanctions would be a victory not for Fidel Castro, but for the power of free people to spread liberty. As Griswold argued, “commercial engagement is the best way to encourage more open societies abroad.” Of course, there are no guarantees. But lifting the embargo would have a greater likelihood of success than continuing a policy which has failed. Some day the Cuban people will be free. Allowing more contact with Americans likely would make that day come sooner.

 

[zinfamous]

CATO Institute: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/time-end-cuba-embargo

pffft. Cato Institute. RINOs!

 

[Fern]

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of nation/regime we should handing benefits to:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/cuban-dissidents-arrested-yoani-sanchez-demonstration

Fern

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of nation/regime we should handing benefits to:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/cuban-dissidents-arrested-yoani-sanchez-demonstration

Fern

How's that different from Vietnam or China?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30360665

 

[ivwshane]

How's that different from Vietnam or China?

It's not but good luck getting him or Rubio to admit it.


Clearly there was free speech and no repression of the Cuban people existed for the last 50+ years while they were being embargoed. Perhaps fern wants to try the same thing we used to do and hope the results will be different.

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of nation/regime we should handing benefits to:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/cuban-dissidents-arrested-yoani-sanchez-demonstration

Fern

I would agree that Cuba is a horrible nation, but so are a lot of other nations. The farms, businesses and homes seized aren't going to be restored any more than those seized in Africa or Vietnam or Israel, and while I do wish Obama had gotten something useful in the deal, Cuba is dirt poor and realistically can't pay any restitution that would be meaningful to the Cuban Americans it robbed.

I don't see how we can realistically make Red China a world power while insisting that Cuba be isolated. If Russia or China try posting missiles there, we can always just annex it.

 

[werepossum]

It's not but good luck getting him or Rubio to admit it.


Clearly there was free speech and no repression of the Cuban people existed for the last 50+ years while they were being embargoed. Perhaps fern wants to try the same thing we used to do and hope the results will be different.

Actually the embargo well served its purpose. Unless it happens to have abundant and easily extracted resources, no communist nation is going to be prosperous without preying on capitalist nations or raping its neighbors. By preventing Cuba from benefiting from its nearest and richest large neighbor, we greatly hampered the spread of communism in the new world.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of nation/regime we should handing benefits to:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/cuban-dissidents-arrested-yoani-sanchez-demonstration

Fern

This is backwards. We are not giving them benefits by not embargoing them, we are simply no longer inflicting a penalty.

If you would like to justify the continuance of that penalty that's fine, but I would be interested to know why you would do it to Cuba but not China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc.

Whatever purpose this embargo served died a very, very long time ago. It's time we admitted it.

 

[First]

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of nation/regime we should handing benefits to:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/30/cuban-dissidents-arrested-yoani-sanchez-demonstration

Fern

lol. Oh Fern.

 

[Fern]

This is backwards. We are not giving them benefits by not embargoing them, we are simply no longer inflicting a penalty.

If you would like to justify the continuance of that penalty that's fine, but I would be interested to know why you would do it to Cuba but not China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc.

Whatever purpose this embargo served died a very, very long time ago. It's time we admitted it.

Cuba has long and very bad history. Nothing, and I mean nothing, they've done was in our interest. In fact, much of it was purposefully working against us.

Lately they've been a bit quiet. Of course, lately they've had no money. I don't find that entirely coincidental.

So, I see no good reason funnel our money over there now. What will we do if they return to there past ways? Who will be taking over for Raul Castro? What kind of player will this person be on the world stage? IMO, these are questions that should have been asked and answered before changing our policy.

Russia and Venezuela, both of whom supported Cuba in their malicious behavior, are out of money due to falling oil prices. With no support from them Cuba was in a tight spot. We let them 'out' for nothing.

China, Vietnam etc are unrelated to Cuba and their positions are unique and much different than Cuba's. I find raising them in discussions of Cuba a meaningless diversion.

Fern

 

[K1052]

China, Vietnam etc are unrelated to Cuba and their positions are unique and much different than Cuba's. I find raising them in discussions of Cuba a meaningless diversion.

It is entirely reasonable and appropriate to ask why Cuba should be treated differently than other formerly hostile nations that we now have normalized relations with. I have yet to see a logical answer to this question. Why is Cuba held to a such a unique standard?

Bringing Cuba back into the US sphere of economic/social influence will perhaps do more to shape the future of that country than any political demands we could possibly make. The case for why this should not be done after decades of a pointless embargo hasn't been made.

 

[Sonikku]

Cuba has long and very bad history. Nothing, and I mean nothing, they've done was in our interest. In fact, much of it was purposefully working against us.

Glad we have commies like China that we don't have to embargo that have our core interests at heart.

 

[Screech]

Cuba has long and very bad history. Nothing, and I mean nothing, they've done was in our interest. In fact, much of it was purposefully working against us.

A long and bad history? Yeah, those times where they were supporting a brutal dictator in America who tortured and executed thousands, or those times they tried to send in people to kill our president, or that time they hired a bunch of American exiles to try to invade America were all pretty bad.......

....wait, what? Now we can try to argue that the last couple were 'justified' in so far as we were trying to get rid of a totalitarian dictatorship but that is gonna be at best a pretty hard sell, being as the guy we supported before the guy we were trying to 'off' was the shining example of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Certainly the cuban missile crisis comes to mind regarding bad stuff Cuba has done but let's be realistic here.....we were actively fighting North Vietnam (now simply Vietnam) well after the end of the missile crisis and have basically allied with them (against China, who we also openly trade with). In addition, that was effectively a response by Cuba to the bay of pigs and a response by the Soviets to our missiles in turkey. Trying to argue that Cuba is so incredibly unique that we should always embargo them simply doesn't make any sense. edit: and like Vietnam, China has spilled a lot more American blood (through involvement in the korean war with armies of "volunteers") than cuba ever has.

The other point that is relevant on embargos is that they are incredibly ineffective for forcing regime change. All they tend to do is make the government more aggressive and the people more poor (and that assumes that the country in question can indeed be cut off from enough of the rest of the world for the embargo to be effective). Embargoes certainly have good use in other aspects (technology, military equipment, etc) but this isn't really one of them.

 

[werepossum]

A long and bad history? Yeah, those times where they were supporting a brutal dictator in America who tortured and executed thousands, or those times they tried to send in people to kill our president, or that time they hired a bunch of American exiles to try to invade America were all pretty bad.......

....wait, what? Now we can try to argue that the last couple were 'justified' in so far as we were trying to get rid of a totalitarian dictatorship but that is gonna be at best a pretty hard sell, being as the guy we supported before the guy we were trying to 'off' was the shining example of a totalitarian dictatorship.

Certainly the cuban missile crisis comes to mind regarding bad stuff Cuba has done but let's be realistic here.....we were actively fighting North Vietnam (now simply Vietnam) well after the end of the missile crisis and have basically allied with them (against China, who we also openly trade with). In addition, that was effectively a response by Cuba to the bay of pigs and a response by the Soviets to our missiles in turkey. Trying to argue that Cuba is so incredibly unique that we should always embargo them simply doesn't make any sense. edit: and like Vietnam, China has spilled a lot more American blood (through involvement in the korean war with armies of "volunteers") than cuba ever has.

The other point that is relevant on embargos is that they are incredibly ineffective for forcing regime change. All they tend to do is make the government more aggressive and the people more poor (and that assumes that the country in question can indeed be cut off from enough of the rest of the world for the embargo to be effective). Embargoes certainly have good use in other aspects (technology, military equipment, etc) but this isn't really one of them.

Just to take the contrarian point of view, should the question really be "Is there a reason to continue embargoing Cuba?" Why not "Is there a reason to stop embargoing Cuba?" Cuba has absolutely nothing we want or need, we'll just bleed more money as Cuban ex-pats and proggies start sending money south, and Fern makes a good point that the main reason Cuba is not currently trying to expand the revolution is simply because it no longer can afford it, being a failed economy. Now we're going to start propping up Cuba's economy for no better reason than Obama's political affinity, at our own cost, with the very real risk (or benefit, from Obama's point of view) that Cuba will once again begin exporting Marxism. Not to mention a very real risk of Russia once again stationing nuclear missiles there.

I see no particular moral argument for continuing the embargo, but I see no probable benefit to America for stopping it either.

 

[Brainonska511]

Just to take the contrarian point of view, should the question really be "Is there a reason to continue embargoing Cuba?" Why not "Is there a reason to stop embargoing Cuba?" Cuba has absolutely nothing we want or need, we'll just bleed more money as Cuban ex-pats and proggies start sending money south, and Fern makes a good point that the main reason Cuba is not currently trying to expand the revolution is simply because it no longer can afford it, being a failed economy. Now we're going to start propping up Cuba's economy for no better reason than Obama's political affinity, at our own cost, with the very real risk (or benefit, from Obama's point of view) that Cuba will once again begin exporting Marxism. Not to mention a very real risk of Russia once again stationing nuclear missiles there.

I see no particular moral argument for continuing the embargo, but I see no probable benefit to America for stopping it either.

Good will towards our other Latin American neighbors (which furthers our soft power in the region), expanded business opportunities for American businesses, and a better opportunity to guide Cuba in the direction we want them to go is not a good enough benefit for us?

They could already do the other things you mentioned, with the embargo in place. The US was the only country with the embargo.

 

[werepossum]

Good will towards our other Latin American neighbors (which furthers our soft power in the region), expanded business opportunities for American businesses, and a better opportunity to guide Cuba in the direction we want them to go is not a good enough benefit for us?

They could already do the other things you mentioned, with the embargo in place. The US was the only country with the embargo.

The USA is the only nation capable of fueling Cuba. For some bizarre reason, other nations set and operate foreign policy for their own benefit. I don't know we'll get any good will for this, for with a more prosperous Cuba comes Cuban soldiers propping up Marxist groups looking to seize power. Can't do those things if you can't afford them. And as far as "expanded business opportunities for American businesses, and a better opportunity to guide Cuba in the direction we want them to go", surely our experience with China has definitively shot down both of those arguments.

 

[TreVader]

The USA is the only nation capable of fueling Cuba. For some bizarre reason, other nations set and operate foreign policy for their own benefit. I don't know we'll get any good will for this, for with a more prosperous Cuba comes Cuban soldiers propping up Marxist groups looking to seize power. Can't do those things if you can't afford them. And as far as "expanded business opportunities for American businesses, and a better opportunity to guide Cuba in the direction we want them to go", surely our experience with China has definitively shot down both of those arguments.

Yes because 500 million iPhones and the biggest company in the most powerful nation on earth represent absolutely no business success or opportunity.


China is the perfect example for why American businesses will NOT benefit at all from normalized relations with Cuba. You're so smart!

 

[sunzt]

The USA is the only nation capable of fueling Cuba. For some bizarre reason, other nations set and operate foreign policy for their own benefit. I don't know we'll get any good will for this, for with a more prosperous Cuba comes Cuban soldiers propping up Marxist groups looking to seize power. Can't do those things if you can't afford them. And as far as "expanded business opportunities for American businesses, and a better opportunity to guide Cuba in the direction we want them to go", surely our experience with China has definitively shot down both of those arguments.

The US normalization with China has created the largest growth in the middle class there that the world has ever seen. The improvements in telecom and communications have provided individuals with a way to have voice in their government and in society. Weibo, sina, QQ, Wexin, etc. have given people a channel to discuss issues that effect society and in-turn government policy even if it is heavily monitored by government. VPNs are omnipresent which allow citizens to get around firewalls.

Chinese citizens are demanding more environmental reforms and anti-corruption reforms, which the leadership has been enacting recently.

Think of it this way:

-Worst case of normalization of Cuba relations can lead to a situation like China, which isn't necessarily bad.

-Not normalizing can lead to a situation like North Korea or even a destabilized version of it, which is VERY bad.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And just when the embargo was finally starting to work....



My sister sells coconuts now coconut futures have crashed and she's in crisis
Thanks Obama

You do know what TS stands for??

 

[fskimospy]

Cuba has long and very bad history. Nothing, and I mean nothing, they've done was in our interest. In fact, much of it was purposefully working against us.

Lately they've been a bit quiet. Of course, lately they've had no money. I don't find that entirely coincidental.

So, I see no good reason funnel our money over there now. What will we do if they return to there past ways? Who will be taking over for Raul Castro? What kind of player will this person be on the world stage? IMO, these are questions that should have been asked and answered before changing our policy.

Russia and Venezuela, both of whom supported Cuba in their malicious behavior, are out of money due to falling oil prices. With no support from them Cuba was in a tight spot. We let them 'out' for nothing.

China, Vietnam etc are unrelated to Cuba and their positions are unique and much different than Cuba's. I find raising them in discussions of Cuba a meaningless diversion.

Fern

How on earth is the US posture towards other communist nations that were implacable US geopolitical enemies for decades unrelated!?!??!

So no, I want to hear your reason for why China and Vietnam get a pass despite killing vastly more Americans and costing America vastly more economically while you think Cuba should be embargoed. You won't answer because you know there isn't an answer.

Oh and by "lately" you mean the last several decades. You honestly think that because oil prices crashed over the last few months that the embargo that has been failing for a half century straight was suddenly about to work? Give me a break.

 

[First]

China, Vietnam etc are unrelated to Cuba and their positions are unique and much different than Cuba's. I find raising them in discussions of Cuba a meaningless diversion.

Fern

lol, holy shit. This is an unbelievable statement. China and Vietnam are serial human rights abusers and propagandists of the highest order, making regimes like Russia blush.

 

[CitizenKain]

Cuba has long and very bad history. Nothing, and I mean nothing, they've done was in our interest. In fact, much of it was purposefully working against us.
Fern

Was that before or after we attempted a coup in their country?

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually the embargo well served its purpose. Unless it happens to have abundant and easily extracted resources, no communist nation is going to be prosperous without preying on capitalist nations or raping its neighbors. By preventing Cuba from benefiting from its nearest and richest large neighbor, we greatly hampered the spread of communism in the new world.

That's lame, even from you.

Cuba raping America, preying on her? Really?

Cuba's other trading partners like Brazil, China & Spain?

What part of Glenbeckistan do you hail from, anyway?

 

[Fern]

It is entirely reasonable and appropriate to ask why Cuba should be treated differently than other formerly hostile nations that we now have normalized relations with. I have yet to see a logical answer to this question. Why is Cuba held to a such a unique standard?
-snip-

If you look back at your post you'll see I answered that question in the portion of my post you quoted.

First, the primary objective of foreign policy is to advance our interests. And I think the term "primary" understates the importance of that concept in foreign policy.

It is not about treating all foreign countries the same. It is not about treating every foreign country 'fairly', as if anybody really agrees on what the hell that means. It's about advancing our own interests.

I do not believe we must, or should, treat every foreign country the same because they are not the same. They are not the same in terms of their own individual characteristics, not the same in terms of what benefit or danger they represent to us, not the same in terms of their own aims or needs, not the same in their ideologies or cultures.

The countries mentioned have vastly different geopolitical significance. E.g., Russia was cozying up to Cuba because of the proximity to us.

These countries have different strengths and weaknesses. This mandates that we use different tools available in foreign policy to reach our objectives. E.g., we don't embargo China because, quite frankly, we can't. It would arguably be very disruptive to our own economy, at least in the short term, and that's not in our own interests (or maybe our politicians' electoral interests).

The idea that we would, or could, embargo Saudi Arabia is absurd. Would it be in our (economic) interests? Could it even be done logistically? (Oil is a global commodity etc.) As bad as they are, e.g., illicit funding of terrorists etc., they're one the 'better' countries in that region and can be useful to us. E.g., they stand as bulwark of sorts against the spread of fundamental Islamic regimes. Does Cuba? How can these two even be mentioned together in foreign policy etc.?

China is massive with a +billion people and nuclear arms. Cuba? Jeebus.

Fern