UN Urges US to End Cuba Embargo

[Avatar4321]

Yes. I believe it does. There's no other rational reason for it. We deal with the former soviet states. We deal with China. We deal with every nasty dictatorhip in the world. But little Cuba????

And for the record, I thought it stupid when Bill Clinton didn't change it either. But as you might recall, he had other issues to deal with ... like pointless investigations, so didn't need the hassle of the Newt Gingrich types yelling about what a bad dude Castro is.

I hear Havana is beautiful, though. And it's also my understanding that all the financial groups, like the Carlyle Group, are all set to go down and exploit it as soon as Castro kicks and are probably already heavily invested. Wonder how much Haliburton has in.

And don't mind Steffie... she;s an angry rightie... gets upset by people who don't agree with her sad little mindset.

oh... last thing about Cuba. Technically your wife CAN go there. There's no State Department regulation keeping her out. It's a Treasury Department regulation and it prevents her SPENDING AMERICAN MONEY there.

Kinda silly that the Treas. Dept. is keeping that kind of ridiculousness going. The absurdity of it kills me.

Are you honestly saying that through 8 years, Bill Clinton could never once find a moment to end an embargo on Cuba despite the fact that he had plenty of time to commit and cover up the crimes he was guilty of?

I think we should end the embargo and start trading with them and totally destroy their communist grip through free trade.

 

[tigerbob]

We continue sanctions on Cuba because we think it will be an easy one to topple. It isn't. But that doesn't change the sanctions. Cuba is too damn close to us for comfort being a communist nation friendly to every little third world, piece of shit dictator. If they had any money they could become dangerous fast, and that is why we continue sanctions.

So from your perspective the basis for retaining sanctions is:

1. If they stay in place long enough the communist regime there will be overthrown by the people of Cuba.

2. These citizens, hungry for the benefits that lifting the embargo would bring after 40 some years of isolation, will then establish a democratic state friendly to the US.

Correct?

 

[manu1959]

you can travel to cuba....just fly to south america then fly to cuba.....they won't stamp your pasport and everything will be cool...

or you can fly to malta and see what a profitable cuba looks like.....

btw...how is a US embargo hurting cuba....socialisim is a better financial system they should be just fine no?

 

[Stephanie]

Yes. I believe it does. There's no other rational reason for it. We deal with the former soviet states. We deal with China. We deal with every nasty dictatorship in the world. But little Cuba????

And for the record, I thought it stupid when Bill Clinton didn't change it either. But as you might recall, he had other issues to deal with ... like pointless investigations, so didn't need the hassle of the Newt Gingrich types yelling about what a bad dude Castro is.

I hear Havana is beautiful, though. And it's also my understanding that all the financial groups, like the Carlyle Group, are all set to go down and exploit it as soon as Castro kicks and are probably already heavily invested. Wonder how much Halliburton has in.

And don't mind Steffie... she;s an angry rightie... gets upset by people who don't agree with her sad little mindset.

oh... last thing about Cuba. Technically your wife CAN go there. There's no State Department regulation keeping her out. It's a Treasury Department regulation and it prevents her SPENDING AMERICAN MONEY there.

Kinda silly that the Treas. Dept. is keeping that kind of ridiculousness going. The absurdity of it kills me.

I'm very capable of speaking for myself...So you can just keep me out of your postings...Now... move on to judging other people...

 

[007]

So from your perspective the basis for retaining sanctions is:

1. If they stay in place long enough the communist regime there will be overthrown by the people of Cuba.

That's one facet of the embargo yes.

2. These citizens, hungry for the benefits that lifting the embargo would bring after 40 some years of isolation, will then establish a democratic state friendly to the US.

Correct?

As far as the "people" of Cuba go, I'd say yes, it would be US friendly, otherwise we wouldn't have a few hundred thousand Cuban refugees here. As to whether or not a new government would be is anyone's guess.

 

[jillian]

I'm very capable of speaking for myself...So you can just keep me out of your postings...Now... move on to judging other people...

Awwwwwwwwwww....poor steffie weffie gets cwanky when people tell the twuth about her...

 

[jillian]

Are you honestly saying that through 8 years, Bill Clinton could never once find a moment to end an embargo on Cuba despite the fact that he had plenty of time to commit and cover up the crimes he was guilty of?

I think we should end the embargo and start trading with them and totally destroy their communist grip through free trade.

Not time... but priorities. You think he'd have wasted political capital on it with the right wingers breathing down his back and the anti-Castro Cubans in this country at his heels? Wouldn't have been worth the bother. Truth? I think it's like Nixon opening China... someone has to have had a history of hating Commies to do it. Bush could have, but chose not to, IMO.

I have no problem with trading with Cuba. I think we should.

 

[jillian]

That's one facet of the embargo yes.

And how effective do you think that's been after 40 some-odd years?

 

[Toro]

And how is it exactly the reason Castro has stayed in power?

It solidifies his support in the country because its a constant reminder of Yanqui imperialism.

America has engaged virtually every other communist country on the planet, and all but two have fallen. And trade and access to western products played at least a part in every single one.

Yet, because of a handful of octogenarian Cubans in Miami, this policy continues.

It is an embarrassing anachronism.

 

[Toro]

And how effective do you think that's been after 40 some-odd years?

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

It hurts America, not helps it.

Not only does it help keep Castro in power, other countries are investing in Cuba. When Cuba eventually opens up - and it will - American business will be way behind in that country.

 

[dilloduck]

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

It hurts America, not helps it.

Not only does it help keep Castro in power, other countries are investing in Cuba. When Cuba eventually opens up - and it will - American business will be way behind in that country.

Way behind? You mean other countries will sell all of thier goods to the Cubans or they will get all the Cubans to work in their factories for banana peels ?

 

[Stephanie]

Awwwwwwwwwww....poor Steffie weffie gets cwanky when people tell the twuth about her...

It takes a hell of lot to hurt my feelings...And I can guarantee, you don't have what it takes...my dear girlie...

I did not speak about you or to you in this thread, until you spoke about me...
But as usual, you had to throw in your so called intellectual superiority, by putting someone else down... if that's what's it takes for you to inflate your shallow ego....than have it...

You my dear..don't even register on my radar for giving a shit if you hurt my feelings...

 

[doniston]

UN Urges US to End Cuba Embargo

By EDITH M. LEDERER – 2 days ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly voted for the 16th straight year Tuesday to urge the United States to end its trade embargo against Cuba, whose foreign minister accused the U.S. of stepping up its "brutal economic war" to new heights.

The 192-member world body approved a resolution calling for the 46-year-old U.S. economic and commercial embargo against Cuba to be repealed as soon as possible.

"The blockade had never been enforced with such viciousness as over the last year," Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque told the assembly, accusing President Bush's administration of adopting "new measures bordering on madness and fanaticism" that have hurt Cuba and interfered in its relations with at least 30 countries.

Delegates in the General Assembly chamber burst into applause when the vote in favor of the resolution flashed on the screen — 184 to four with one abstention. That was a one-vote improvement over last year.

The vote came less than a week after Bush delivered his first major address on Cuban policy in four years, attacking the communist government and challenging the international community to help the island shed Fidel Castro's rule.

The United States has no diplomatic relations with Cuba, lists the country as a state sponsor of terror and has long sought to isolate it through travel restrictions and a trade embargo. This year, it stepped up enforcement of financial sanctions.

Castro, 81, temporarily ceded power to his brother Raul in July 2006 after undergoing intestinal surgery, and has not been seen in public for more than a year.

The Bush administration sees Castro's failing health as an opening for change. Little is different under Raul Castro, 76, and Bush said in his speech that the U.S. will make no accommodations with "a new tyranny."

"It is long past time that the Cuban people enjoy the blessings of economic and political freedom," U.S. diplomat Ronald Godard said just before Tuesday's vote.

"We urge member states to oppose and condemn the Cuban government's internal embargo on freedom, which is the real cause of the suffering of the Cuban people," he added.

Perez Roque accused the United States of violating international law, depriving Cuban children of medication, and even preventing Cuban writers from participating in a book fair in Puerto Rico.

He expressed Cuba's solidarity with U.S. movie producer Oliver Stone, who was attacked by the U.S. government for filming in Cuba, and activist director Michael Moore, who is being investigated for visiting Cuba.

"It is McCarthyism of the 21st century," Perez Roque said.

"Without doubt, as you well know, the brutal economic war that has been imposed on Cuba hasn't only affected Cubans," he added, pointing to banks and companies in many countries that have been hurt by the U.S. financial measures.

Perez Roque accused the U.S. of ignoring the 15 previous resolutions "with arrogance and political blindness."

"Cuba will never surrender," he said. "It fights and will fight."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gsrftsLzidsgfjOWheBaOgbnVCgQD8SJM9M00

So now they've agreed with me for sixteen straight years

 

[kreati0n]

I have no problem ending the embargo. I just refuse to entertain the idea of doing so because those idiots at the Useless Nations want us to.

 

[Gunny]

I don't know whether you looked at the link in the first post, but it indicates that this is the 16th straight year that the UN has voted in this manner (for the end of the embargo), which actually takes us back to the first Bush administration.

Do you hate the fact that the UN voted this way, or do you just hate the UN? Why get out of the UN? What's your problem with ending the embargo?

I have no problem with ending the embargo. It's pointless.

So is the UN. I have no problem with ending our support of that as well.

 

[JeffWartman]

And how is it exactly the reason Castro has stayed in power?

It gives him extra ammo in building a straw man.

 

[Gunny]

Er...I never said it was anyone's fault. All I said was I didn't understand it. I requested an explanation, you chose to be insulting.

You don't know what my opionion is about Cuba, or about the UN for that matter. You never chose to ask, you just assumed. I said that I didn't understand America's position on Cuba, you chose to think that this meant I did not support it. I suppose I don't support it, but only because I don't know what it is, not because I disagree with it.

If you tell me why there is an embargo, I'll tell you if I support it or not. I'll also tell you my opinion of the UN.

Or you can just continue to assume. From the tone of your post, it seems you have your mind made up already, but I could be wrong.

The Cuban-Americans, mostly concentrated in FL, are a powerful lobby, and they STILL have delusions of grandeur of one day returning to a "liberated" Cuba. Never mind the fact the Bautista government was one fo the most corrupt of its day.

Cuban political refugees in this nation are set up in style at taxpayer expense. They are given a home, sent to school, paid while going to school, then set up in business.

Take away their political refugee status and they get what every other immigrant to the US gets.

As far as the UN goes, it does not represent the interests of the US, and in fact seems to always go against US interests. Add that to the fact that it is a paper tiger, incapable of enforcing its own resolutions.

As was proven when the UN voted on whether or not to invade Iraq and France purchased Venezuela's deciding vote so France could move on with its under the table cut rate oil deals with Saddam, it is hardly an organization based on principle; rather, self-interest.

That being the case, it is in our self-interest to get out.

 

[tigerbob]

As far as the UN goes, it does not represent the interests of the US, and in fact seems to always go against US interests. Add that to the fact that it is a paper tiger, incapable of enforcing its own resolutions.

As was proven when the UN voted on whether or not to invade Iraq and France purchased Venezuela's deciding vote so France could move on with its under the table cut rate oil deals with Saddam, it is hardly an organization based on principle; rather, self-interest.

Thanks for the background, which is interesting. Not sure I agree with you entirely about the UN - if it is supposed to represent the views of all nations then naturally it will be against the interests of some.

On the other hand your point about a paper tiger is well made. Much like the League of Nations, the UN has become so caught up in the idea of its role as peacekeeper that it has abdicated its role as peacemaker - a subtle but key difference.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks for the background, which is interesting. Not sure I agree with you entirely about the UN - if it is supposed to represent the views of all nations then naturally it will be against the interests of some.

On the other hand your point about a paper tiger is well made. Much like the League of Nations, the UN has become so caught up in the idea of its role as peacekeeper that it has abdicated its role as peacemaker - a subtle but key difference.

I have a BIG issue with the UN's incompetence. Rwanda and Darfur should NOT be allowed to be happening. Yet the UN issues warnings while sitting on its hands.

Instead they want to spend their time fussing at Israel for defending its right to exist, or fussing at us for actually doing something.

 

[Shogun]

The UN is not supposed to favor anyone. Would you TRUST a ruling organization that did favor one group over another? Why act like the spoiled brat when mommy actually has to love your siblings as well?


and end the cuban embargo, dammit.