When are we going to lift sanctions on Cuba?

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
You can't use such reasoning. There are threats everywhere and you can't neutralize them all. I mean, the USSR had many ICBMs pointed at the US for many many years, by your reasoning, there should ahve been a war so that threat was neutralized.

You are right, you can't stop all threats. However, the ones you can stop, you should. Especially if it involves a minimal loss of life. Let's face it, a war with the Soviets would have killed thousands, millions if the bombs were used. In comparison, how many lives were lost due to the Cuban Missile Crisis? One, two? That price is worth it to keep nukes of an island 90 miles from the US.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: SpongeBob

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Nukes off the coast aren't to be forgotten...

again, the same dumb thinking.

are you aware that:

1. there were never nukes in cuba?
2. there were plenty of american nukes in turkey?
3. That russia had and probably still has, ICBMs aimed at the US?

Actually, at the time of the cuban missile crisis, there were most likely nukes already in Cuba. At least that's what my American Foreign Relations prof (who is a historian) told us.

There were just silos there.


After the Bay of Pigs invasion Castro declared Cuba to be communist and sought the protection of the USSR (with which he was already on friedly terms). The USSR naturally wanted to place nukes so close to the US, since the US already had nukes in Turkey. So they started building solos, the US spotted them, a U2 got shot down on one of the missions, put a naval blockade in place to prevent the nukes reaching cuba.

In the end the whole thing worked out nicely. USSR didn't put nukes on Cuba, the US promised not to try and overthrow Castro and remove their nukes from Turkey. And the whole thing was followed by a detente and everybody lived happily ever after.

well you have at least one thing wrong: only 1 U2 has ever been shot down, and that was when gary powers flew a straight course over the USSR.


castro is a master politician. absolute genius at that sort of game. he manipulated the people that put him in power (they thought it was a middle class revolution... ha!) and got them to sign away their land. he almost manages the whole darn place himself. during the revolution itself he did almost nothing, sat in the hills while others did the fighting and dying, then walked into havana after batista left on new year's (after losing US support).

anyone who believes that the US embargo is holding cuba back hasn't thought about it long enough.

 

[ElFenix]

actually RFK was authorized to remove the missles from turkey as offer to krushchev but the general secretary backed down before he knew about it. which wasn't his best move.

 

[Martin]

This statement seems to imply that the U.S. OWES island nations tourism as a right.

No, it doesn't imply that.

And no, the China argument does not apply. Two wrongs don't make a right.

yes it does, in fact its very important. It shows how the US is willing to forget about communism, human rights etc when lots of money is at stake. I can't blame them, its a good decision, but I get irritated when people use the communism and human rights argument with Cuba.

 

[JellyBaby]

Another angle: some think Castro was responsible for JFK's assassination. If the upper echelon of our government knows this as fact, I might doubly understand their desire to maintain sanctions against him.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Another angle: some think Castro was responsible for JFK's assassination. If the upper echelon of our government knows this as fact, I might doubly understand their desire to maintain sanctions against him.

If that's true, then it would be understandable, but since no government official has ever come out on record as saying Fidel did it, I'm going to stick with my politics theory.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Another angle: some think Castro was responsible for JFK's assassination. If the upper echelon of our government knows this as fact, I might doubly understand their desire to maintain sanctions against him.

LBJ too!

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Dudd

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
You can't use such reasoning. There are threats everywhere and you can't neutralize them all. I mean, the USSR had many ICBMs pointed at the US for many many years, by your reasoning, there should ahve been a war so that threat was neutralized.

You are right, you can't stop all threats. However, the ones you can stop, you should. Especially if it involves a minimal loss of life. Let's face it, a war with the Soviets would have killed thousands, millions if the bombs were used. In comparison, how many lives were lost due to the Cuban Missile Crisis? One, two? That price is worth it to keep nukes of an island 90 miles from the US.

The USSR didn't want to put those nukes on cuba to start a war, they just wanted to scare americans and bring some balance. I'm no expert in military matters, let alone the state of the militaries in 1962, but i am pretty sure that they had other ways of launching nukes at the us. I think cuba was simply the most convinient one.

Also, since when does the US have the right to interfere whenever in other countries' business?

 

[dexvx]

Cuba is the poorest country in the western hemisphere due to Communism?

Look at Argentina, its economy is in shambles, even after the IMF tried to bail it with billions in aid.
Furthermore, look at the Yahoo World Factbook:
Cuba GDP/capita - $1700
Haiti GDP/capita - $1340


As for Communism and human rights. I dont know what you some people are talking about. I live in China a couple of months every few years. I'm not rich, but upper middle class. I may not have the right to vote (we all know everyone in the US just loves to exercise their right to vote), but on a local level the average person has more freedom than a person in the US (few city ordinances/restrictions and above all no taxation).

The only exception is the Falung, which heck, if you knew what they were about, you'd want to throw them in prison too... not that the US has a flawless record in human rights either.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
The USSR didn't want to put those nukes on cuba to start a war, they just wanted to scare americans and bring some balance. I'm no expert in military matters, let alone the state of the militaries in 1962, but i am pretty sure that they had other ways of launching nukes at the us. I think cuba was simply the most convinient one.

Also, since when does the US have the right to interfere whenever in other countries' business?

For the last time, they had no way to strike the continental US before placing missiles in Cuba. I suppose when I put a gun to your head I can tell you you have no right to interfere in my business? Try a new argument.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Cuba is the poorest country in the western hemisphere due to Communism?
Look at Argentina, its economy is in shambles, even after the IMF tried to bail it with billions in aid.

It's still by far the richest country excluding the US, Canada, and some small islands. $12,900 GDP/capita. You're an idiot.

Furthermore, look at the Yahoo World Factbook:
Cuba GDP/capita - $1700
Haiti GDP/capita - $1340

I consider the CIA world factbook more accurate. You're an idiot.

As for Communism and human rights. I dont know what you some people are talking about. I live in China a couple of months every few years. I'm not rich, but upper middle class. I may not have the right to vote (we all know everyone in the US just loves to exercise their right to vote), but on a local level the average person has more freedom than a person in the US (few city ordinances/restrictions and above all no taxation).
The only exception is the Falung, which heck, if you knew what they were about, you'd want to throw them in prison too... not that the US has a flawless record in human rights either.

No, really, you're an idiot. Please move back to China and stay there.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
The USSR didn't want to put those nukes on cuba to start a war, they just wanted to scare americans and bring some balance. I'm no expert in military matters, let alone the state of the militaries in 1962, but i am pretty sure that they had other ways of launching nukes at the us. I think cuba was simply the most convinient one.

Also, since when does the US have the right to interfere whenever in other countries' business?

For the last time, they had no way to strike the continental US before placing missiles in Cuba. I suppose when I put a gun to your head I can tell you you have no right to interfere in my business? Try a new argument.

1. They still could have, by more traditional means. IE a bomber. Like I said, Cuba was simply the most convinient option.

2. No, that's like me stopping my neighbour from buying a gun because he may use it against me.

 

[UberNeuman]

AaronP - I remember your little "Will Muhammad Ali have to change his name" post on 9-11-2001, plus your sad little remark in the Daniel Pearl thread among your other pitiful comments of the past...

I do feel sorry for you that your life is so small that nasty little comments like those are you really have to look forward to, go play with your game, boy...

As for Cuba, the US has no reason to lift the sanctions... Prattle on all day, it's not going to change things and call me dumb - good way to present an arguement...

Armchair history, like armchair quarterbacking is great...

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Its time already. If we can trade with other communist countries like China, why not Cuba? I am just so sick of punishing that small island. Let them trade with us. Heck, Castro is going to kick off anyway. Lets open the door of friendship so the new leaders have a new respect for us and the American way.

The only thing that would happen is the US would export to Cuba. Cuba really has nothing to offer us.

[/quote]
I didn't read the whole thread but what about those niiiiiiice cigars(sp?)?

 

[Mday]

when?

well, not while there is a republican like bush in the white house.

 

[jjones]

Well, I see this as fairly simple. Two reasons, revenge and, quite simply, they have nothing we want. I don't see sanctions being lifted until Castro is gone and his legacy being well on its way out the door.

The simple fact is Cuba has nothing we want from them so it is easy to let the desire for political revenge continue. Also, it remains easy because Castro hates the US so we're happy to oblige him.

 

[SpongeBob]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
actually RFK was authorized to remove the missles from turkey as offer to krushchev but the general secretary backed down before he knew about it. which wasn't his best move.

Actually the US did agree to remove the missiles from Turkey but only after the midterm congressional elections in '62.

 

[rahvin]

Actually Kennedy had forgotten or didn't know about the Turkey nukes at first. The flaw with your argument is that there was no mutually assured destruction yet. The USSR in 1962 did not have the ability to strike the mainland United States. Missiles in Cuba changed that. Only by the mid- to late-60s did the Soviets have any significant intercontinental capabilities.

Kennedy didn't forget about the nukes in Turkey, he never made it a public issue. The Pershings were gonig to be decommissioned in a year anyway. He agreed secretly but non publicly in his conversation with Kruschev that the nukes would be removed, this was the conversation just before Kruschev called back the fleet.

I presume you are refering to the Marshall plan? That was a good investment, and I'm sure the US cared about communism back then, but they dont seem to be doing much nowadays.

I don't think you know the limits that Truman went to in an attempt to stop stalin. We drew a line, we spent 400billion dollars in 60's (I believe that translates to over a trillion dollars today after inflation) on the marshal plan to rebuild western europe. We spent another 250 million dollars preventing the soviet backed communist insurgents from taking greece and turkey. We "spent" close to 50,000 american lives preventing the fall of south korea (a stalin induced regime in north korea). We spent more trying to prevent vietnam (a mistake). AMERICA drew the line in the soil and told stalin he wasn't crossing it.

But feel free to explain the US' relationship with China then. The way I see it, china represents a huge business oportunity, so the US is willing to forget about communism and such, but Cuba is insignificant, it wouldn't mean much to the US other than another tourist spot, so they can easily afford to ignore it.

Because communism is dead. China knows this, we know they know it and it's just a matter of time at this point. China also doesn't intend to take over the world like the USRR did.

The USSR didn't want to put those nukes on cuba to start a war, they just wanted to scare americans and bring some balance. I'm no expert in military matters, let alone the state of the militaries in 1962, but i am pretty sure that they had other ways of launching nukes at the us. I think cuba was simply the most convinient one.

Bullsh!t. Those nukes were to give the soviets first strike capability. You are right, they did feel entitled to place them do to the nukes in Turkey but that doens't change the nature of those placements and the way the soviets denied their existence. And for reference in 1962 the only way to use nukes was with bombers or SRBM/MRBM's. There were NO ICBMS, NO Naval launched, nothing but bombers and small missles. In addition, bombers couldn't fly around the globe at that time.

Also, since when does the US have the right to interfere whenever in other countries' business?

The US has had a stated policy since the 1800's that NO foreign power from across the atlantic can interfere in the business of the western hemisphere.

but on a local level the average person has more freedom than a person in the US (few city ordinances/restrictions and above all no taxation).

So you consider anarchy, no rights to fair trials, no freedom of speech and the lack of freedom of religion MORE freedom? Wow you should live in China then because you are severely warped.

 

[Scipionix]

rahvin: I'm glad someone else here has some sense and some knowledge of the facts. I was telling these morons all night that the USSR had no transcontinental strike capability :disgust:

Good one on the Monroe Doctrine too; I forgot about that.

I really still have trouble believing that these people think that letting the Soviets move nukes into our driveway would have been perfectly okay. If those people had been running things, Europe would be entirely Communist and the Soviet Union would be alive and well. Or we might all be dead.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: rahvin
[ China also doesn't intend to take over the world like the USRR did.

Yeah right

. That is BS and you know it! How about Tibet? Taiwan? Those islands in South-East Asia?

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Yeah right

. That is BS and you know it! How about Tibet? Taiwan? Those islands in South-East Asia?

But they DON'T want to take over the world. They just want to take over all of East Asia 😀

 

[rahvin]

Yeah right . That is BS and you know it! How about Tibet? Taiwan? Those islands in South-East Asia?

Tiawan and Tibet have both been part of China long before the 20th or 21st century. All China's claims to date have been for land that used to be part of the empire and is occupied by people that are ethnicly <sp> chinese. Also I haven't seen any leaders of China get up in the UN and pound a shoe on table and tell the world they would bury them. Big difference wether you wanna recognize it or not. China has no world domination goals.

 

[Martin]

China has no world domination goals.

and Cuba does?

 

[rahvin]

No cuba has no world domination goals. But they did steal property from americans and we reserve the right to refuse to trade with anyone we don't like.

 

[Martin]

Bullsh!t. Those nukes were to give the soviets first strike capability. You are right, they did feel entitled to place them do to the nukes in Turkey but that doens't change the nature of those placements and the way the soviets denied their existence. And for reference in 1962 the only way to use nukes was with bombers or SRBM/MRBM's. There were NO ICBMS, NO Naval launched, nothing but bombers and small missles. In addition, bombers couldn't fly around the globe at that time.

According to this site (federation of american scientists) the first Russian ICBM (r-7) was deployed in 1960 with a range of up to 14000km, which is enough to hit some US cities. But they wanted first strike or fast strike (in case the americans started it first) capability IN CASE OF WAR, but they did not put those nukes there so they can start a war.

The US has had a stated policy since the 1800's that NO foreign power from across the atlantic can interfere in the business of the western hemisphere.

But the USSR was the superpower from across the pacific 😉

In any case, its a ridiculous policy. If argentina and south africa wanted to trade fruit, can the US threaten them with war? According to their policy, they should. But the fact is that the US has no rights interfering in the relations of two soveriegn countries, whether they're trading fruit or missiles, its their problem.