Obama's Cuba Stand Breaks Rank

I was going to say that the title is a tad misleading as a few candidates have said they intend to scrap the embargo and normalize relations with Cuba.

However, it looks like Obama would do the least (of those that support moving towards normalizing) in attempting to fix relations.

So we have normalized, or close to normalized relations with the largest communist country in the world, China, but Cuba is still a threat of some kind?

Yes, exactly, get it?

She has recently sought to portray Obama as naive on foreign policy.

That is sad. This is sad.. How dare you Obama? HOW DARE YOU?? What? Making me agree with that witch who would be president! I hate Hillary but she is right, Obama is naive on foreign policy. I think he is trying his best to use his green political career as a good thing vs a bad but right now where Obama stands is on shaky ground where he seems to think that hatred of Bush alone will get him elected and that Americans are dumb enough to think that the country needs a new direction so bad that the most qualified candidate is the least qualified one that runs. He may be right based on how things look right now but I refuse to believe that the smart people in this country will let that happen. Right now you can make a good argument to someone about why Obama shouldn't get elected and in the end the person you argue with will always make a comment about how anything is better then Bush...

Example: (and I swear I have had this conversation with about 10 people)

Me: Well, I am just saying. The guy has charm and all but what has he done with his current power? He just relies his Hollywood-like fame to make us forget that he has no track record and has done nothing but talk and so far that talk has put an ally of ours on the defensive with comments he made about sending military into a friendly country like Pakistan without their approval.
JoeShmoe: Oh, and Bush is any better? It's good that he has no experience it is what this country needs!

Next would be a response pointing out that no one is talking about Bush and also that it might be good for the LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD to have juuusssstt a tiny tiny bit more experience. I mean it's not like @!$%#ing up in that job can cause harm.. NAAHHHH!

Anyways, this is just another example of Obama showing his green and pushing idiotic ideas.

Unfortunately this will fall on deaf ears just like it did with Joe Shmoe.

From Nov. 18, 2003

Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) said from the campaign trail late last week, “The United States’ Cuba policy is a failure. The unilateral embargo must be lifted. The persistently hostile and aggressive rhetoric must cease. We must lift not only the trade embargo. We must also lift the travel ban. We must cooperate with Cuba on issues of national security.”

“It is time to create a new era in Cuban-American relations,” he said.

[ Source: Kucinich to Bush: Lift Cuban Embargo ]

@ Collin:

I get that you disagree with the notion of favoring Obama as alternative to Bush.

Obama aside, since several candidates favor ending the embargo against Cuba: Can you explain why you think normalizing relations with Cuba is bad in your view.

Oxa,

On the subject of ending the embargo I am confused why anyone would consider it to begin with. It has been pointed out that China is not treated as harshly even though we do not like to support communism but to me this has been a huge mistake on our part because they are a massively strong economy compared to what they once were. God help us if we ever get into major @!$%# with them because those Walmart bombs will hurt us bad. They have already proven that they can take satellites out of commission and blind our forces.. We can kiss missile launch detection goodbye.

As for Cuba, the reasons we setup the embargos still exist today. We should not help a nation grow in any way when they threaten our way of life and I can think of nothing greater then communism that has proven it is a threat. They have everything to gain and we have nothing to gain by throwing it out at this point.

What I really disagree with, and I hate to think of some poor old lady who can't go visit her kids, is the loosening of travel to Cuba. Mexico is a tough border to defend against but I don't sense any love for terrorism from Mexicans. Cuban-Americans are fine because they have come here to escape the very thing we are trying to protect ourselves from. But in a country that doesn't believe in our system at all it seems just dangerous to increase travel restrictions which in my opinion should be tightened on all borders. Well maybe not on all borders because I do think allowing more legitimate travel from Mexico to the US would make it safer to assume those crossing illegally have criminal intentions and should be treated as harsh, if not harsher than they are currently when captured by border patrols. It is much easier to prevent illegal crossing of an ocean than an invisible line.

Chinese don't vote like we Cuban-Americans.

So to clarify, normalized relations with Cuba is a threat because the are communists and communism is at odds with the U.S. system of government. Is that correctly restated?

I do not see how the small, in relation to the the U.S., population of Cuba could represent a significant threat.

Terrorism cannot be the reason, because there is just as much the threat of terrorists traveling to the U.S. from any give foreign land, whether Western European, Middle Eastern, African, etc.

Economics cannot be the reason, because their socialist system presents no direct competition to the U.S. markets since the scale of their production and resources are proportionally tiny by comparison.

Ideology cannot be the reason, because communist thought is widely known in the United States. The underpinning philosophy and history are frequently studied in U.S. public schools and universities without any danger. Yet it has not presented a danger, so open communication with Cubans should not be directly dangerous to the "American way".

So where does the Cuban threat originate?

China on the other hand presents one enormous threat, their economic power, as you noted. And in this case, it is the U.S. debt, which China holds as a debtor, that threatens U.S. stability more than anything that might be said about communism. But the U.S. government continues to borrow money to finance activities such as war that, if they are moral wars as opposed to profiteering ventures, should present no financial gain.

But that is China. Massive China. Not Cuba. Tiny Cuba.

Because you aren't a Cuban-American you can't understand what is to lose the family, FREEDOM and for what you worked all your life. Therefore......I am proud to be an American. When the Castros and their puppets are gone we will be glad to normalize the diplomatic relationships.

No one risks the life to be eaten by the sharks or died of thirst for a "vacation" in the USA.

I do not see how the small, in relation to the the U.S., population of Cuba could represent a significant threat.

Yes, well I should point out that no one saw China as a threat when they were crippled by poverty but look how Chinas problems have changed. Rather than a country with financial struggles, their largest problem is that they have so much money that is not balancing itself out and being distributed to farmers and working class. They have a huge gap between the rich and poor and less middle class in between which is a bad sign for them. It is pretty obvious now that we should have had more restrictions on imports but of course they now earn a large amount of American dollars which as you pointed out they turn around and loan back to us. I don't know about you but I don't like borrowing money from anyone, especially not a communist country.

But the reason you don't see a threat my friend is that we have been doing the right thing with the embargo and other restrictions. I know it goes against the beliefs of a person like to you consider even for a @!$%#ing moment that our country has done anything right but why don't you just grow up and stop hating on American politics just for the sake of hating.

Economics cannot be the reason, because their socialist system presents no direct competition to the U.S. markets since the scale of their production and resources are proportionally tiny by comparison.

It's not about competition. It is about enabling an unfriendly government. If we were to help expand businesses in Cuba you can rest assured that none of that money would remain in the hands of the good hard working people. It will be acquired by the government and very likely used against us. No one WANTS to make those people who would risk their lives in shark infested waters suffer more but there is no way to help them without giving more power to the very cause of their suffering.

But the reason you don't see a threat my friend is that we have been doing the right thing with the embargo and other restrictions. I know it goes against the beliefs of a person like to you consider even for a @!$%#ing moment that our country has done anything right but why don't you just grow up and stop hating on American politics just for the sake of hating.

First, I asked some straight forward questions, listened to your views, and politely expressed my own opinion. Why did you choose to cuss at me, and suggest that I uniformly hate "American politics just for the sake of hating."?

Lastly, I am certainly not your "friend" unless you magically hacked my NV profile and befriended me.

I'm disappointed that we cannot have a civil conversation about this as I would have appreciated coming to better understand your viewpoint.

Cry me a river Oxa. Are we sensitive? Did I hurt your feelings.. Me soo sowwy...

You asked questions.. I answered them.

Wow, I'd hate to work with you.
"I think [opinion a]"
"THAT IS SO F*&N STUPID ARHG, you Hate America!"
"Um, that offended me, can we talk about this rationally? I'm interested in your respo-"
"OOOOH, did I hurt your widdle feewings?"

It's like an SNL character.

Awesome! I was totally saying that with Chevy Chases voice in my head. You nailed it!

His entire response implied that I did nothing more than curse at him. I don't have time for cry babies, sorry. Did my language, which was not directed AT anyone really, invalidate my points? Am I not allowed to have the opinion that Oxa is just another one of these guys who is going to have an issue with anything and everything that the government does? Have you read the description that he gave himself on Newsvine? The guy has made it his mission in life to show our government as a group of ruthless slime that can do no right.

I understand that people have been blinded by frustration but I have had enough of it for today. get the wool out of your eyes sheep.

If I must address his comment like a grown up then so be it. Oxa, I am sorry that I chose to assassinate your character. It was wrong of me to assume that just because you have stated that you have concerns about corruption in politics. Perhaps, it was a leap to assume you are just some misguided hate mongerer that will argue about any and all actions of the government because it's impossible that the government might get something right now and again.

You know, this whole issue reminds me of someone standing in front of a dam next to a big valve. "Well it's dry over here, guess we don't need this valve closed".. next frame of this comic strip would of course show the idiot being washed away.

It wasn't the initial swearing as much as your response to the response to your swearing. Once when I was 10 I watched a movie with my mother and a guy in front of us was talking a lot during the movie. When it was over, she caught him and said politely, "Just so you know, for future reference, talking during the movie makes it difficult for others to hear." The guy, who was a large man, just said "Well, for 'future reference' why don't you shut up and mind your own business!"

The problem is not just that the guy was talking during a movie, but that when he was given politely worded constructive criticism, instead of apologizing and moving on he was mean.

You didn't agree with someone. You feel that Oxa simply hates America and is bringing everyone down by questioning the policies and decisions of the American government. It's my opinion that a state that refuses criticism is a state in a downward spiral, and every action a government makes should have its pros and cons weighed. In this particular case Oxa is voicing a concern that is shared by others, that the embargo emboldens Castro. You say Cuba isn't a problem like China because of the embargo, and we're saying Castro's regime is still standing because of the embargo.

Unless one of us tries to look up information beyond our opinions, then we are at an impasse. When that happens, agreeing to disagree is considered thoughtful and polite. Yelling and calling people sheep is not.

It wasn't the initial swearing as much as your response to the response to your swearing.

I doubt you would like the response to your response about my response to his response very much. So lets move on...

In what way would the embargo embolden Castro? The guy has 1 foot out the door already. It's funny that so many of you have a problem with Bush, and rightly so on many issues, but you want to blame Cubas problems on the embargo we placed on them a long time ago. Lift the embargo and all will be well somehow? It seems overly simplistic. I can't for the life of me connect the dots between the leap you make by saying that the regime is in fact still standing because of the embargo. Do you think that if we were to flood and shower them with our demands for cheaper labor and goods exchanging many riches that this would inspire the people to overthrow Castro?

I could be wrong but Communism doesn't exactly respond efficiently to the demands of the people so an overthrow must be what you are talking about. What fantasy is playing out in your head here?

Let em repeat the question in words that you will understand..

Neiighh BaahhBaaaa Baaaa Baahhh neigh Baaaaah?

(Lets not obsess, it's a joke. As my daddy once told me, screw you if you can't take a joke!)

I actually do like your response to my response to your response, but I still don't have a full understanding of your side of the issue. On the one hand China (and also Vietnam, but they adopted capitalism before normalization I think) as an example of a communist regime reacting to "normalization" of relations shows that market forces can "convert" communist regimes to the wonders of capitalism. On the other, they have continued to abuse human rights left and right (and these days it seems anything made in China is 90 percent more lethal). As a litmus test for embargo lifting, China has pros and cons, as you also argue that it is allowing them to sample the wonders of the free market that has given them enough power to form a large part of an Anti-American Sphere of Influence.

Anyway, China and Cuba are so different that a comparison might not be fair; China is a powerhouse of natural resources and manpower while Cuba has cane sugar, doctors, and salsa music -- I don't see how normalization with Cuba could become even a quarter of the problem it could if we allow Cuba to be able to rely on Venezuela and China, and even then I can't see Cuba being an eighth of a problem that China is. The greatest ill-will they have toward us is based on this embargo (and to a smaller extent our ownership of Guantanamo), so I don't buy it that we will have Cuban sponsored terrorism on our hands. I worry that when Fidel dies another Castro (like Raul) will be able to maintain the regime with the support of Chavez, something I think neither of us want to see, and the longer we wait to normalize relations, the more of a Venezuelan puppet state we could have on our hands.

The Helms-Burton Act [embargo on Cuba, the rational of which is that U.S. property appropriated in 1959 is stolen, so those who deal with Cuba are dealing in stolen property and won't be allowed to deal with the U.S.] "allows Cuba to blame every problem on the U.S." and also noted by Wikipedia, aside from near unanimous international criticism,

The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who resent the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the Canadian House of Commons, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law).

(that made me laugh out loud)

We have maintained an embargo on Cuba for 45 years in the interest of destabilizing the regime, but it has not worked. Instead, we are forcing them to turn to countries who don't care about our embargo and are happy to profit from it (although we are still Cuba's top supplier of agricultural products, our revenue from selling to them has dropped by 3 percent because of China/Venezuela subsidies).

The argument against lifting the embargo seems to me that, "people that want to lift it are America Haters that blame problems in Cuba on America and Castro apologists and think that just because it hasn't worked, it won't." (sentiment I find some representation of in the blogosphere)

I understand that communist regimes have been hostile to the U.S.. This has nothing to do with Bush. "Leave the embargo and all will be well" sounds oversimplistic. I can't for the life of me connect the dots between the leap you make by saying that the regime is eventually going to fall because of the embargo. Do you think if Venezuala, China, and the EU shower them with their demands for goods and doctors in exchange for money and vice versa that this will inspire the people to overthrow Castro? Is your argument, "it's not broke, so don't fix it?" And if so, don't you see how we are acting counter to everything that capitalism stands for?

Now, aside from this unsupported argument (if we lift the embargo, then they will kill us or make life worse for us in some way), I have not been able to find lucid, non-rhetoric and informational criticism of lifting the ban, so I have no choice but to respectfully place the burden of proof on you. I look forward to your insights and information that supports your contention that the embargo helps anyone other than the US companies that are specifically allowed to sell to Cuba, and all the other countries that don't support the embargo.

It's very easy to take over others property and don't pay for them. Here the lsota claims that the President Bush is a tyrant, etc., etc., Well, they don't know the rotten baloney that they are posting and saying..

Cuba is in ruins and their people live in those ruins unlike the Romans and Greeks that visitors pay to see and they leave .

I have to admit that I don't understand what you've said, Determined0a1.

Oh, dear.

Once Fidel "rented" the island to the Russians for placing their missiles......the rest is history. What the government has to do in Cuba is lo leave and let others to live.

What you say is true, but I still see it as a house of cards held up by the pressures of the embargo. The democratizing forces of technology and the free market will race Castro's bad health and the people's discontent to topple the regime like a house of cards, if we lift the embargo. Otherwise, some Castro look alike will step in to continue to oppress the people with a control of information aided by the embargo, a unifying scarcity, and a unifying single enemy responsible for said embargo.

We know who is the Castro clan and their clowns. Therefore, they can blame the USA but we know that it's their failure.

Whomever lifts the embargo and normalizes relations will lose votes in Miami, but will also cause dramatically improve the live of Cuban citizens and more importantly improve the lives of Americans

Not really and true. Cuba lost the line of credit with the Europeans, i.e. the government don't like to pay back for what they buy. The USA sells Cuba medicine, food etc., with the condition that is prepaid before the ships dock.

When you have a chance watch this DVD: Havana, the new art of making ruins

and not even our historic places were saved only the Cuban government built hotels in the beaches for the foreigners and not even the Cubans can stay.