Should America open normalized relations with Cuba?

[nc-1701]

I doubt it costs us money to NOT does something. I'd like to see the bill on that one.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34976

Spoiler :

The report states that the ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba causes tourist agents in the U.S. losses of 565 million dollars per million U.S. tourists who are prevented from visiting the country.

"Due to the obstacles to trade imposed by the blockade, U.S. agricultural exporters lost income of about 300 million dollars, which were used for purchases in other markets," the Cuban report said.

Read the article...

Haven't had an effect YET. The Cubans haven't had a chance to really do anything about it, have they? When Castro dies, they'll have a chance, its up to them to end this.

"It's up to them" I'm getting tired of this it was up to the Iraqis not to kill each other so what did thet do? It was up to the Palestinines to elect a free government they elected Hamas... The point is we can't trust the citizens of other nations to do a darned thing. It is more likely they will just be mad at us for what we did to them, dictator or not, people love to blame someone we are very easy to blame here.

I could argue that Radio Free Europe was a waste of money too, based on your point of view.

It probably was...

Also, the propaganda is independent of the embargo, I'm arguing for the embargo, not the propaganda.

Fair enough

I never said they were a threat. And Cuba's never done anything against us, that was the Soviet Union that did that, what with the nukes and all. As I said, this is principalistic, to acknowledge Cuba is to give up, admit defeat, and we quite simply cannot do that, there is no reason to do that.

How can we give up a war that never started?

We also signed a peace treaty with Vietnam, but good luck travelling there, even today to call it a pain in the ass is an understatement.

Yes, you don't see the President walking around Cuba in a flowered skirt though do you?

This is my opinion I'm arguing, not the government's.

Okay...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Read the article...

That's money we didn't make, not money we spent. I'm sure we could have made a lot of money trading with the USSR before 1971, that doesn't mean we should. Besides, that was what, 400 Million dollars? That's a drop in the bucket.

"It's up to them" I'm getting tired of this it was up to the Iraqis not to kill each other so what did thet do? It was up to the Palestinines to elect a free government they elected Hamas... The point is we can't trust the citizens of other nations to do a darned thing. It is more likely they will just be mad at us for what we did to them, dictator or not, people love to blame someone we are very easy to blame here.

You're probably right, but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The moment we presume to know better is the moment we REALLY look like idiots. After all, its not like citizens haven't ever risen up against tyranny before.

How can we give up a war that never started?

War? Who said anything about war? As I said, this is principalistic, to suddenly go for the pragmatic answer shows weakness, it makes us look desperate, and shows that all you have to do is defy us long enough, and we'll give up.

Yes, you don't see the President walking around Cuba in a flowered skirt though do you?

I never said I wanted my President in a skirt.

I don't see what Vietnam has to do with Cuba, now, though. It's two different situations.

 

[amadeus]

But Gorbachev deserves some respect, had the USSR not collapsed, Wouldn't you want a leader like Gorbachev in the country... not another paranoid Stalin or Mao.

The end of international communism was inevitable; Gorbachev accelerated the demise by suppressing all of the things that he claimed to support - democracy, self-determination, decentralization of the economy.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I Can accept people insulting Stalin, in fact, I'll start it off...

But Gorbachev deserves some respect, had the USSR not collapsed, Wouldn't you want a leader like Gorbachev in the country... not another paranoid Stalin or Mao.

You'd like a leader that would destroy your economy, tear your country apart, and place it at the whims of imperialist powers?

There is no discussion to be had here. The men in the white vans with straightjackets will simply come and take you away. Remain calm.

 

[amadeus]

Insert obligatory neo-Stalinist joke here.

 

[Perfection]

You'd like a leader that would destroy your economy

The economy already sucked, poor standards of living was a fact of life in the soviet union.

 

[amadeus]

The economy already sucked, poor standards of living was a fact of life in the soviet union.

I predict in the short future a dismissal of your claims and an image link to Steven Colbert pointing to a big board with names on it.

 

[nc-1701]

That's money we didn't make, not money we spent. I'm sure we could have made a lot of money trading with the USSR before 1971, that doesn't mean we should. Besides, that was what, 400 Million dollars? That's a drop in the bucket.

Every drop helps... Basicaly while the disadvantage is minimal there is no advantage to continueing a failed doctrine.

You're probably right, but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt. The moment we presume to know better is the moment we REALLY look like idiots. After all, its not like citizens haven't ever risen up against tyranny before.

Yes of course, but is Cuba even a tyrrany? I'm sure it's not free, but it's probably free'er than Singapore. When Castro was ill CNN reporters in Cuba were reporting that people were genuinly worried for their leaders health. I have heard interviews as well that suggest while Cuba is far from a beacon of liberty it's proud nation which has a fair bit of nationalistic pride in it's people. They support their government, they don't want a change.

War? Who said anything about war? As I said, this is principalistic, to suddenly go for the pragmatic answer shows weakness, it makes us look desperate, and shows that all you have to do is defy us long enough, and we'll give up.

Chivalry is dead In all seriousness if something doesn't work for 50 years you atleast change your strategy. Ignoring a problem does't make it go away...

I never said I wanted my President in a skirt.

Well whatever the thing he wore on the photo-shoot in Vietnam was Robe, Kilt, man-skirt idk what to call it

I don't see what Vietnam has to do with Cuba, now, though. It's two different situations.

The situations are very similar two communist nations in one we fought a massive war and lost in the other we instigated a rebelion and lost. In the first instance we moved on. In the other we refuse to move beyond a 50 year old dispute. It's not about principles it's about removing our head from our butt.

 

[BirraImperial]

40+ yrs of embargo have done nothing to bring democracy to Cuba. Maybe the Americans should change their strategy, maybe a close, friendly relationship could bring change to the Cuban people.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes of course, but is Cuba even a tyrrany? I'm sure it's not free, but it's probably free'er than Singapore. When Castro was ill CNN reporters in Cuba were reporting that people were genuinly worried for their leaders health. I have heard interviews as well that suggest while Cuba is far from a beacon of liberty it's proud nation which has a fair bit of nationalistic pride in it's people. They support their government, they don't want a change.

It's called the cult of personality. When Stalin died, people in the gulag who had committed no crimes wept at the news. People are brainwashed. You might be to young to remember when Kim Il Sung died: Koreans wept because of it, despite the horrid conditions they lived in, and the ruthless man he was.

Chivalry is dead

Only to those who give up on it.

In all seriousness if something doesn't work for 50 years you atleast change your strategy. Ignoring a problem does't make it go away...

And now we're back to my plan with the MV batallion in Havanna...

The situations are very similar two communist nations in one we fought a massive war and lost in the other we instigated a rebelion and lost. In the first instance we moved on. In the other we refuse to move beyond a 50 year old dispute. It's not about principles it's about removing our head from our butt.

Go up a bit and read my rant about totalitarianism, and you'll see why I've a problem with Cuba, but not Vietnam.

 

[nc-1701]

It's called the cult of personality. When Stalin died, people in the gulag who had committed no crimes wept at the news. People are brainwashed. You might be to young to remember when Kim Il Sung died: Koreans wept because of it, despite the horrid conditions they lived in, and the ruthless man he was.

Brain washed or not the point is if we take take out Castro there will be a helluva lot of PO'ed Cubans, and the last thing we neeed now is another insurgency/terrorist breeding ground.

Only to those who give up on it.

Ok, you got me

And now we're back to my plan with the MV batallion in Havanna...

I think Iraq proved that war is never as easy as it looks on paper, have you ever heard of murphy's law?

Go up a bit and read my rant about totalitarianism, and you'll see why I've a problem with Cuba, but not Vietnam.

Are you saying that Vietnam is democratic/non-totalitarian?

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Are you saying that Vietnam is democratic/non-totalitarian?

Viet Nam has a provisional government which is laying down the material basis for the transition to true socialism. That's what it has.

 

[CaptainF]

Well not exactly. When we went into Iraq, we sent something like ten divisions of men, because we had to combat the Iraqi Army, and occupy and entire country. Cuba is different, they're fifty years behind Iraq, most of their military is using dilapidated weapons (their air force uses turboprop planes!), and we wouldn't need to occpy the entire country, just go into Havanna and take out Castro and Co. Nothing more than one MC batallion would be needed, and maybe send the USS Wasp offshore or something. To eliminate the possibility of this becoming like Vietnam (where we started out with a small amount of troops, and then found reasons to send more), Congress needs only to, when passing the bill that pays for this operation, put a clause in there that no more funding can be made available for this deal, and that troop strength may not be increased. Pure and simple.

Yet Iraq was supposed to be 50 years behind China even!

Well, I guess if we annexed Cuba, all those boat people wouldn't have to bother anymore...

 

[CaptainF]

As per the OP...

If we have normal relations with China, why not with Cuba?

It's called pragmatism people. That and our freemarket wealth would make a mockery of their stagnant communist BS.

 

[amadeus]

As per the OP...

If we have normal relations with China, why not with Cuba?

One of those is Shanghai, the other is Havana. I'll let you sort that one out.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Brain washed or not the point is if we take take out Castro there will be a helluva lot of PO'ed Cubans, and the last thing we neeed now is another insurgency/terrorist breeding ground.

You only get an insurgency if you have an occupation.

Cubans are catholic, they're not muslims, they're not going to drive into Miami and blow themselves up.

I think Iraq proved that war is never as easy as it looks on paper, have you ever heard of murphy's law?

Murphy's Law is BS. Just as one success doesn't guarantee another, one failure doesn't guarantee another, because each situation is different.

Are you saying that Vietnam is democratic/non-totalitarian?

It's a one-party system, but its far from totalitarian, and they're about as 'communist' as China is. The embargo by most of Europe and the United States really hurt them after the war, enough that in 1986 they started a serious economic reform system. They are also one of the "Next Eleven" nations.

 

[CaptainF]

One of those is Shanghai, the other is Havana. I'll let you sort that one out.

And how exactly did Shanghai get that wealthy?

Foreign investment?! Pssh...

 

[nc-1701]

You only get an insurgency if you have an occupation.

Cubans are catholic, they're not muslims, they're not going to drive into Miami and blow themselves up.

Something to remember terrorists don't have to be Muslim. There have been many Communist/even Catholic terrorists. Vietnam, IRA, Chinese civil war.

Murphy's Law is BS. Just as one success doesn't guarantee another, one failure doesn't guarantee another, because each situation is different.

Yes, but whats the plan you said we go in kill Castro & co. then leave Cuba ends up in Anarchy? If we stay to try and set up a democratic government an insurgency is almost certain. If we just leave then we get anarchy untill another dictator fills the void. International politics are never easy and the amount of resources required to massively change something like this is huge.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Something to remember terrorists don't have to be Muslim. There have been many Communist/even Catholic terrorists. Vietnam, IRA, Chinese civil war.

But not indoctrinated ones, as you're implying that we would create, should we depose Castro and Co.

Yes, but whats the plan you said we go in kill Castro & co. then leave Cuba ends up in Anarchy? If we stay to try and set up a democratic government an insurgency is almost certain. If we just leave then we get anarchy untill another dictator fills the void. International politics are never easy and the amount of resources required to massively change something like this is huge.

They'll get out of anarchy in a few turns...

Seriously, though, you've nothing more than a hunch about this insurgency thing, you're just basing it on the fact that we had one in Iraq. And if there was an insurgency, then we leave, pure and simple. Either way, Castro and Communism are gone from Cuba. It also helps if you initiate such an act through the international community, you know, get the UN on the ground to oversee the elections or something.

 

[amadeus]

And how exactly did Shanghai get that wealthy?

Foreign investment?! Pssh...

Before foreign investment, Mao died and China toned down the "running pigdog capitalist lackey" nonsense.

Cuba, on the other hand, is just as ridiculously as Marxist as they were in the sixties.