RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Cuba: Invade, engage, or embargo?(8 posts)

Cuba: Invade, engage, or embargo?PdxMark
Apr 10, 2003 11:53 AM
How about Cuba? It didn't even rate an honorable mention in the Axis of Evil. Forty years of embargo has been to no effect, except possibly to give Castro a reasonable basis to shift blame for economic problems to the US. (The failure of the embargo is even more clear in the face of US trade with Iraq through the sanctions period.)

So, do we invade to free to people of Cuba from the tyranny of Castro? (Under the banner Liberators-R-Us) Or, since there's no evidence that Cuba is supporting terrorist threats against the US, do we leave the downtrodden people of Cuba to suffer under Castro - while letting the embargo work its magic against the Castro regime? (Oh wait, we rejected that option in Iraq.)

Or do we drop the embargo (in its slightly softened current form) and engage Cuba economically and diplomatically? Or, do we keep the embargo in place for no rational reason as a sop to Cuban immigrants in Florida and their perceived (or actual?) ability to swing Presidential elections?

Cuba: invade, engage or embargo?
Engage,TJeanloz
Apr 10, 2003 12:01 PM
The Cuba embargo is not nearly of the severity or scope of the Iraqi embargo -- almost every country in the world trades openly with Cuba, except the US, and even that is beginning to change. There is a very similar corollary to China, with whom a similar approach is being taken. While Cuba was a real threat to the US when the embargo was put into place, that is no longer the situation. Since the loss of Soviet support, Cuba has begun to embrace some more democratic/western thinking with regards to economics and governance. Opening the economic floodgates would produce a different effect in Cuba than it would have in Iraq, due to the different resource profiles of the two countries.
Agreed...PdxMark
Apr 10, 2003 12:21 PM
Trade and interaction would be more effective than the embargo to effect change in Cuba. I'm afraid that we're stuck with the embargo since no-one wants to incur the political wrath of Florida's Cubans. But, maybe GWB will come through.... As Spock said in one of the Star Trek movies "We have an old saying on Vulcan. Only Nixon could have gone to China."
re: Cuba: Invade, engage, or embargo?Alpedhuez55
Apr 10, 2003 12:16 PM
I say get some human rights and economic reforms there in exchange for lifting the embargo and some economic aid.

And if anyone is curious, Cuban Cigars are both overpriced and overrated. They are nice for the novelty once in a while though. I think I like Honduran & Nicaraguan cigars almost as good though. I would like to try Cuban Rum though!!!

Mike Y.
Sorry PM, no oil in Cuba!!!!cycleaddict
Apr 10, 2003 12:31 PM
Dont forget..JFK....ClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 12:43 PM
Agreed that that US would not invade Cuber ( as he pronounced it)....castro is nearing the end of his days...we should be quietly working and hoping that his successor will move cuba towards the free world...
Giddy from our success in Iraq . . . .cory
Apr 10, 2003 3:03 PM
This is what I was afraid was going to happen--we kick butt in Iraq (total military budget $1.4 billion, compared to the U.S. ~$400 billion) and immediately start looking for some other windmill to attack. Why do we have to do ANYTHING to Cuba? It's not bothering us; Castro's in his 70s; it will take care of itself. And if we want to correct the human rights abuses, there are lots of places with worse problems, starting with Saudi Arabia. Oh, but wait--we can't go in THERE....
re: Cuba: Invade, engage, or embargo?Jack9
Apr 10, 2003 11:46 PM
Leave Cuba alone, Haiti is the American model for a Caribbean Island. Don't start the cold war up again.