Cuba, spring break 2015

[BobD]

I have no clue, but I'm guessing Obama does. There's probably negotiations still going on as to the location of the embassy, timeline, etc.

We already have a building and staff that have been there representing the US all along, its just not called an embassy. Soon they'll put a plaque up and call it an embassy.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Some people in this thread arguing like we are at the height of the Cold War. Communism is dead. The ideological war is over. Maintaining the embargo isn't going to expedite the "official" collapse of the communist regime in Cuba anymore than it has in the last 25 years. This is not a "favor" to a dying government and a dying leader, it is a favor to the people of Cuba. Normalizing relations is a humanitarian gesture toward the Cuban people who have actually paid the price for a government they did not elect and an embargo they did nothing to deserve.

There will be no communist Cuba after Raul Castro dies (imminently). This is the geopolitical equivalent of putting the walk-ons in the game up by 50 with 3:00 left.

 

[Bluto]

Stop. You hurt my feelings.

Since sarcasm eludes you, I'll try and be extra explicit. I think you're crazy if you don't think the Cuban regime is a threat to us and our way of life.

EDIT: Serious question. How would you have felt about the US having "normalized relations" with South Africa during apartheid? I'm guessing you wouldn't have been so happy about that. No, it's cool to sanction countries that oppress their communists but when the communists are the oppressors we better have "normalized relations" with them.

The White South Africa government was oppressing 99% of the population based on race not political ideology. It was about "white supremacy" not "communism". I have a bunch of old history books lying around if you would like to borrow them.

 

[pkt77242]

..

I agree that it made more sense to normalize relations about 5-8 years ago (too bad we were locked in a 2 wars and had a financial crisis to deal with) but better late then never.

While he was not a mass murder (or attempted mass murder) according to our governent (whom you don't believe) he was directly responsible for foiling some plots and fingered our own people who were committing treason. That is a pretty fucking important.

As to the last part about 25% of their population already has internet. So expanding it would help. Is it the perfect solution, no, but lets be honest people will always find a way around the blockades in front of them as long as they have the internet access (China, Egypt, Iran, etc prove that).

Ultimately I think we are better off for having started the process to normalize our relations with Cuba. Is it the dream scenario, nope, but that will likely never happen. Lets start importing our shit (tv shows, movies, food, coffee, etc) over there and lets Americanize them.

 

[IrishinSyria]

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

Interesting article. It seems like Rubio is willing to put his political future at risk over this. I don't think it's a good look.

 

[BobD]

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

Interesting article. It seems like Rubio is willing to put his political future at risk over this. I don't think it's a good look.

I would be for opening up relations with Cuba just to piss Rubio off. The man is a stupid douche bag. I think democrats like having him around because in the end he drives more people to their side.

 

[woolybug25]

Some of you against opening up relations to Cuba are simply grasping at straws to find some way to hate this, simply because you hate the President.

Reading all of your posts, where is your outrage with the US being trade partners with countries that actually have been a military threat to us in our lifetime? We are active trade partners with countries like Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Why are you so up in arms over opening up a little island with pretty much zero military power?

 

[wizards8507]

Again, what makes Cuba a threat to us and our way of life?

It's not about them being a direct military threat, it's about a country that hates us that can provide sanctuary for enemies that ARE credible military threats.

 

[woolybug25]

It's not about them being a direct military threat, it's about a country that hates us that can provide sanctuary for enemies that ARE credible military threats.

Give me a break. Sanctuary for enemies? Who exactly? Russia, China, The Middle East? This isn't 1960, they don't need physical proximity to our country to attack us and Cuba has literally nothing to offer them except that.

Straws... they are being reached for...

 

[IrishinSyria]

Really though, if Republicans just wanted to undermine Obama on this they should just act like they've wanted to do it all along. It seems like such a common sense thing that the easiest way to undermine his "accomplishment" would be to claim that it's no accomplishment at all. However, by drawing a line in the sand, people like Rubio are validating everyone who wants to call this a historic moment (though not everyone who wants to call this an historic moment.)

Resistance here, especially from Republican leaders like Mitch "I'm just going to follow Rubio's gut on this one" McConnell, raises the question: what else did Republicans try to undermine for the soul reason of undercutting the Commander in Chief.

 

[wizards8507]

Straws... they are being reached for...

Hardly. I have no interest in bashing Obama because the voters have spoken in that regard. He'll never be up for election again so there's no point in trying to disagree with him for disagreement's sake. My "dog in the race" is Rand Paul, whom I'd like to see get the Republican nomination and the presidency in 2016. Paul happens to support this decision and I happen to disagree. Disagree with my position all you want, but please refrain from assigning juvenile motivation to them.

Give me a break. Sanctuary for enemies? Who exactly? Russia, China, The Middle East? This isn't 1960, they don't need physical proximity to our country to attack us and Cuba has literally nothing to offer them except that.

I don't know, ISIS maybe? The next iteration of ISIS, whomever that may be? Sure, Russia and China could obliterate Manhattan with an ICMB but a cave-dwelling terrorist outfit needs physical proximity to harm us on a large scale. The hijackers on 9/11 didn't launch a rocket from Saudi Arabia, they boarded airplanes in Boston, New Jersey, and Washington, DC.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Give me a break. Sanctuary for enemies? Who exactly? Russia, China, The Middle East? This isn't 1960, they don't need physical proximity to our country to attack us and Cuba has literally nothing to offer them except that.

Straws... they are being reached for...

To dramatically, awesomely, and unnecessarily illustrate Woolybug's point... this video shows every road, flight path, and shipping lane in the world. No matter where you are in the world, you're a flight or a boat ride away from the US. The difference in staging an attack from Pakistan v Cuba is nothing more than a handful of hours.

<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/40940686" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[wizards8507]

To dramatically, awesomely, and unnecessarily illustrate Woolybug's point... this video shows every road, flight path, and shipping lane in the world. No matter where you are in the world, you're a flight or a boat ride away from the US. The difference in staging an attack from Pakistan v Cuba is nothing more than a handful of hours.

Just because you CAN attack us from anywhere in the world doesn't mean it's of equal difficulty. You're honestly telling me that a terrorist in Islamabad and a terrorist in Havana with equal resources would be able to launch the same scale attack and achieve the same level of success against the continental United States? Come on.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Just because you CAN attack us from anywhere in the world doesn't mean it's of equal difficulty. You're honestly telling me that a terrorist in Islamabad and a terrorist in Havana with equal resources would be able to launch the same scale attack and achieve the same level of success against the continental United States? Come on.

Difference in difficulty would be marginal at best.

I don't think we should let our country's foreign policy be dictated by hypothetical terrorists. There are clear economic and geo-political benefits to normalizing relationships with Cuba. You have to make a metric shit-ton of assumptions to construct a scenario where an attack in the US happens or is of a greater magnitude than it otherwise would have been because of our relationship with Cuba. Terrorism works best when it causes a disproportionate reaction in the society it targets.

 

[wizards8507]

Difference in difficulty would be marginal at best.

I don't think we should let our country's foreign policy be dictated by hypothetical terrorists. There are clear economic and geo-political benefits to normalizing relationships with Cuba. You have to make a metric shit-ton of assumptions to construct a scenario where an attack in the US happens or is of a greater magnitude than it otherwise would have been because of our relationship with Cuba. Terrorism works best when it causes a disproportionate reaction in the society it targets.

I'll just back up a minute because "terrorist threat" isn't my primary reason for disliking this. My primary reason is a simple principle: America doesn't do business with oppressive communist regimes. I was offering an alternative objection for those who don't like the first principle on its face.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'll just back up a minute because "terrorist threat" isn't my primary reason for disliking this. My primary reason is a simple principle: America doesn't do business with oppressive communist regimes. I was offering an alternative objection for those who don't like the first principle on its face.

Fair enough. I don't agree (China, etc..) but I can at least agree with the logic behind what you're saying.

 

[woolybug25]

Just because you CAN attack us from anywhere in the world doesn't mean it's of equal difficulty. You're honestly telling me that a terrorist in Islamabad and a terrorist in Havana with equal resources would be able to launch the same scale attack and achieve the same level of success against the continental United States? Come on.

As Syria said, you're talking marginal at best. They don't need physical launch points or ships to attack us. They can do it with long range missiles, jets and even cyber attacks. Wars aren't fought like they used to be in the '60's, and their proximity certainly doesn't warrant a full trade/travel embargo. Hell, Mexico has more of a relationship with Russia than Cuba does at this point.

Again, while Cuba has a much closer physical proximity, they have far less resources, need and even desire to attack us than almost every country in the middle east. An embargo is just overkill in a big time way. Doesn't make sense for Cuba nor America.

 

[wizards8507]

They don't need physical launch points or ships to attack us. They can do it with long range missiles, jets and even cyber attacks.

Depends who "they" are. Yes, "they", China, Russia, etc. have those things. "They" as in some upstart group of jihadists, physical proximity matters.

 

[woolybug25]

I'll just back up a minute because "terrorist threat" isn't my primary reason for disliking this. My primary reason is a simple principle: America doesn't do business with oppressive communist regimes. I was offering an alternative objection for those who don't like the first principle on its face.

What are you talking about? Venezuela is a huge oil trade partner and not only are they governed by a flat out tyrant, but one that despises America. We did over $64 Billion in trades with them in '12.

China? You mean our second largest trade partner at $579 billion a year?

How about Saudi Arabia at $74 billion?

Saying we have a simple American principle that "we don't do business with oppressive communist regimes" is laughable.

 

[woolybug25]

Depends who "they" are. Yes, "they", China, Russia, etc. have those things. "They" as in some upstart group of jihadists, physical proximity matters.

You mean from country who's population is over 70% catholic? We are just as likely to get attacked by a jihadist upstart from Brooklyn.

 

[woolybug25]

Depends who "they" are. Yes, "they", China, Russia, etc. have those things. "They" as in some upstart group of jihadists, physical proximity matters.

What are you talking about? Venezuela is a huge oil trade partner and not only are they governed by a flat out tyrant, but one that despises America. We did over $64 Billion in trades with them in '12.

China? You mean our second largest trade partner at $579 billion a year?

How about Saudi Arabia at $74 billion?

Saying we have a simple American principle that "we don't do business with oppressive communist regimes" is laughable.

My last post got bumped by a age break, so I am bumping my response.

 

[wizards8507]

What are you talking about? Venezuela is a huge oil trade partner and not only are they governed by a flat out tyrant, but one that despises America. We did over $64 Billion in trades with them in '12.

China? You mean our second largest trade partner at $579 billion a year?

How about Saudi Arabia at $74 billion?

Saying we have a simple American principle that "we don't do business with oppressive communist regimes" is laughable.

Okay, you're arguing with my poor articulation more than you're arguing with my point itself. Fine, I shouldn't have said "we DON'T do business with oppressive regimes." I should have said "we OUGHT NOT do business with oppressive regimes." I was expressing what I believe should be a principle we stand by, not what I believe we actually do in practice.

 

[woolybug25]

Okay, you're arguing with my poor articulation more than you're arguing with my point itself. Fine, I shouldn't have said "we DON'T do business with oppressive regimes." I should have said "we OUGHT NOT do business with oppressive regimes." I was expressing what I believe should be a principle we stand by, not what I believe we actually do in practice.

I don't personally believe that we shouldn't "ought to not do business with oppressive regimes" either. If we put the same embargo we have on Cuba on the country listed above, we would lose over $717 Billion in trade. It would crush our economy and is in no way even plausible.

Still... it's all straw grasping. We absolutely should be willing to do business with these countries under the right scenarios, because.... well... we have to.

 

[Wild Bill]

Okay, you're arguing with my poor articulation more than you're arguing with my point itself. Fine, I shouldn't have said "we DON'T do business with oppressive regimes." I should have said "we OUGHT NOT do business with oppressive regimes." I was expressing what I believe should be a principle we stand by, not what I believe we actually do in practice.

Do you think there is a chance opening this trade relationship eliminates the oppressive regime? The embargo gives the Castros and their regime a great excuse as to why their economy/way of life is awful. It's Americas fault, of course. Take the excuse away and expose communism/socialism.

 

[phgreek]

Holy shit!

Have you applied for a position in the US Diplomatic Corps? The CIA?

I'm sure that they're drooling at the thought of licking your balls.

You would be a valuable asset.



Holy shit!

Sorry, was a little over the top there...was actually joking around trying to put some levity in the discussion...failed attempt I guess...

 

[phgreek]

I agree that it made more sense to normalize relations about 5-8 years ago (too bad we were locked in a 2 wars and had a financial crisis to deal with) but better late then never.

While he was not a mass murder (or attempted mass murder) according to our governent (whom you don't believe) he was directly responsible for foiling some plots and fingered our own people who were committing treason. That is a pretty fucking important.

Maybe he is...to whom I don't know since he is a burned asset, and not an American. For those evil eyes watching, I believe Civilian + non-american spy < 3 guys who conspired to commit mass murder...none of it makes anyone LESS likely to take an American to barter with...so its a bad deal

As to the last part about 25% of their population already has internet. So expanding it would help. Is it the perfect solution, no, but lets be honest people will always find a way around the blockades in front of them as long as they have the internet access (China, Egypt, Iran, etc prove that).

How internet is currently provided matters...how modern infrastructure would be built out lends itself to BETTER censorship/control...some of the older technology is actually tougher...ie phone and modem. These other countries you mention are really tech mature, so not shocked they get around things...Cuba is 10 years behind on that front, minimum. But we'll see...maybe the build out will take some time and by the time it is done, the Castros will be dead, and no successor tyrant identified...maybe. So in that case, internet looks like what most people would expect.

Ultimately I think we are better off for having started the process to normalize our relations with Cuba. Is it the dream scenario, nope, but that will likely never happen. Lets start importing our shit (tv shows, movies, food, coffee, etc) over there and lets Americanize them.

well, since that is the way its going...yea lets hope good shit happens. I do alot of head shaking and hoping these days...

 

[phgreek]

Some of you against opening up relations to Cuba are simply grasping at straws to find some way to hate this, simply because you hate the President.

Reading all of your posts, where is your outrage with the US being trade partners with countries that actually have been a military threat to us in our lifetime? We are active trade partners with countries like Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Why are you so up in arms over opening up a little island with pretty much zero military power?

because we didn't have to do anything, and an economically weak Cuba w/o Castros is a free Cuba in the making...and I like that better. If we prop up Castros, it adds to their credibility, and increases the chances they choose a successor...not good. So however unlikely you think that outcome, its still more likely than had we just let them die with the embargo in place...

Up in arms...not really...frustrated, yea. Seems to me it was perfectly appropriate to do nothing here...there was no strategic imperative here...the humanitarian issue meh, I don't see that driving this by itself... so my spidey senses make me think I'm missing something...time will tell.

 

[phgreek]

Some people in this thread arguing like we are at the height of the Cold War. Communism is dead. The ideological war is over. Maintaining the embargo isn't going to expedite the "official" collapse of the communist regime in Cuba anymore than it has in the last 25 years. This is not a "favor" to a dying government and a dying leader, it is a favor to the people of Cuba. Normalizing relations is a humanitarian gesture toward the Cuban people who have actually paid the price for a government they did not elect and an embargo they did nothing to deserve.

There will be no communist Cuba after Raul Castro dies (imminently). This is the geopolitical equivalent of putting the walk-ons in the game up by 50 with 3:00 left.

I see you adeptly avoided any JV references...good work!

 

[Irish#1]

Do you think there is a chance opening this trade relationship eliminates the oppressive regime? The embargo gives the Castros and their regime a great excuse as to why their economy/way of life is awful. It's Americas fault, of course. Take the excuse away and expose communism/socialism.

I think it's already started. Last night on 60 Minutes they spoke about how only 5% of the nation has internet access and that should be changing. Another very interesting point they discussed was 2 or 3 years ago Cuba lifted some of the restrictions on cell phones. The US dropped 100,000 phones into the country. Better access to the outside world means Cubans will be better educated and likely to demonstrate more for improvements. I'm assuming the US is paying the cell phone bills for these phones or has gotten the carriers to agree to service these for free. Probably in return for some preferential treatment when Cuba's doors open up more.

 

[woolybug25]

because we didn't have to do anything, and an economically weak Cuba w/o Castros is a free Cuba in the making...and I like that better. If we prop up Castros, it adds to their credibility, and increases the chances they choose a successor...not good. So however unlikely you think that outcome, its still more likely than had we just let them die with the embargo in place...

Up in arms...not really...frustrated, yea. Seems to me it was perfectly appropriate to do nothing here...there was no strategic imperative here...the humanitarian issue meh, I don't see that driving this by itself... so my spidey senses make me think I'm missing something...time will tell.

Who cares if they prop up a Castro? He is absolutely no threat to us as my comments showed before. If China, Iran or North Korea wanted to attack us, then they don't need Cuba. Physical proximity doesn't help them, nor does Cuba offer anything in military backing.

What's perfectly appropriate is to do what the American people want. Which is to open up Cuba to trade and business. There is no threat to us and no reason we can't have at least as open of a relationship as we do with Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. It's not our job to police Cuba's people into anything. They can make their decisions on their own. With how small the world is now with the internet. I find it hard for them to not advance themselves very quickly.