Family Values Under the Bush Administration

[fishbob]

Are you talking about 40 wasted years with Cuba or the 12 wasted years with Iraq when you talk about the empty effect of sanctions?

Seems there's no pleasing some people. No wonder Bush doesn't even try.

First to bring Bush into it. You lose.

And that is not the reason Bush doesn't even try - I suspect that lack of competence has more to do with it.

 

[BPSCG]

And that is not the reason Bush doesn't even try - I suspect that lack of competence has more to do with it.

You mean Bush pleased 52% of the electorate in November, 2004 without even trying?

Damn, he's good...

 

[BPSCG]

My argument for lifting the sanctions against Cuba are:

1) It makes no sense whatsoever.

That's a conclusion, not an argument.

2) Even if it did, it clearly isn't working.

Perhaps they should be tougher, then. How do you feel about worldwide UN sanctions? All the bien-pensants considered them to be a good idea when they didn't like South Africa's apartheid government. Why shouldn't they be applied against Cuba?

3) There are about 11,000,000 people in Cuba, only one of which is Fidel Castro. Punishing 11,000,000 people and restricting the rights of 300,000,000 Americans because you don't like one guy is ridiculous.

You say that as if the main cause of the Cuban people's ills is the U.S. Do you really believe that?

News flash: About 90% of the world's economy is not the U.S. (okay, I made that up - someone prove it's more, or less). Do you really believe the only reason Cuba isn't heaven on earth is because we don't buy their cigars and sugar?

Do you believe that if the embargo were lifted, Castro would empty the political prisons, free trade and industry would blossom all over the island, Cubans would get electricity and clean running water 24 x 7, new political parties representing every point of view would blossom and prosper, new newspapers and radio stations would emerge to bring the Cuban people information that has not passed through the governent censors?

Do you?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Do you believe that if the embargo were lifted, Castro would empty the political prisons, free trade and industry would blossom all over the island, Cubans would get electricity and clean running water 24 x 7, new political parties representing every point of view would blossom and prosper, new newspapers and radio stations would emerge to bring the Cuban people information that has not passed through the governent censors?

Okay, China has political prisons, repression and all the bad things that Cuba has, yet it is perfectly legal for me to buy Chinese made crap by the ton at Wal-Mart while it is a crime for me to buy a Cuban cigar. If I wanted to visit China, I could, if I visited Cuba, I could be arrested.

Why do you think sustaining sanctions on Cuba are a good thing but you do not advocate putting similar sanctions on China?

 

[BPSCG]

Okay, China has political prisons, repression and all the bad things that Cuba has, yet it is perfectly legal for me to buy Chinese made crap by the ton at Wal-Mart while it is a crime for me to buy a Cuban cigar. If I wanted to visit China, I could, if I visited Cuba, I could be arrested.

Why do you think sustaining sanctions on Cuba are a good thing but you do not advocate putting similar sanctions on China?

Frankly, I don't know that sanctions ever work. They haven't against Castro, certainly.

But what's the argument for lifting them? If you could buy cell phones and computers and Nike sneakers and good clothing and Persian rugs and Gatorade and God knows what else, the economic advantage to ending the embargo might make sense.

But what could you buy from Cuba? Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's? And cigars, which, face it, are not a significant portion of our trade.

So really, the economic harm to the U.S. from the sanctions is insignificant.

So why should we lift them? We'd only be helping to prop up and further enrich a murdering dictator, for little benefit to ourselves. Where is the outrage from the bien-pensants here? They get their britches in such a twist because we support other dictators, then when we say that at least we won't support this one, they get their britches in a twist over that. How do you get on the bien-pensants list of approved dictators? Musharref would like to know.

 

[Kerberos]

You say that as if the main cause of the Cuban people's ills is the U.S. Do you really believe that?

Actually he says that as if the embargoes is one of the causes of the Cuban people's ill's whether there are other and greater problems doesn't matter the slightest.

News flash: About 90% of the world's economy is not the U.S. (okay, I made that up - someone prove it's more, or less).

News Flash: About 25% of the world Economy is the US (hint: 25%>10%). A bit more than 25% if we use norminal exchange rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) and a bit less if we use Purchasing power parity exchange rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP). Also those 25% of the world economy are geographically close to Cuba, meaning that in the absence of an embargo it could reasonably be expected to constitute significantly more than 25% of Cubas foreign trade.

Do you really believe the only reason Cuba isn't heaven on earth is because we don't buy their cigars and sugar?

Do you believe that if the embargo were lifted, Castro would empty the political prisons, free trade and industry would blossom all over the island, Cubans would get electricity and clean running water 24 x 7, new political parties representing every point of view would blossom and prosper, new newspapers and radio stations would emerge to bring the Cuban people information that has not passed through the governent censors?

Do you?

Do you really believe that these ridicilous straw men improve on your arguments?

 

[varwoche]

Really?

Transactions related to tourist travel are not licensable. This restriction includes tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities have increased enforcement of these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of Treasury regulations will face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.

State Dept

I'm unable to verify that it's a felony. It may be that it's a misdemeanor but that lying to customs upon return is a felony. One and/or the other, as I recollect.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Frankly, I don't know that sanctions ever work. They haven't against Castro, certainly.

But what's the argument for lifting them? If you could buy cell phones and computers and Nike sneakers and good clothing and Persian rugs and Gatorade and God knows what else, the economic advantage to ending the embargo might make sense.

But what could you buy from Cuba? Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's? And cigars, which, face it, are not a significant portion of our trade.

So really, the economic harm to the U.S. from the sanctions is insignificant.

So why should we lift them? We'd only be helping to prop up and further enrich a murdering dictator, for little benefit to ourselves. Where is the outrage from the bien-pensants here? They get their britches in such a twist because we support other dictators, then when we say that at least we won't support this one, they get their britches in a twist over that. How do you get on the bien-pensants list of approved dictators? Musharref would like to know.

Well, it sounds like we both agree that the sanctions on Cuba don't do a bit of good. I think the best argument for lifting them is that they prop Castro up more than they hurt him. Right now Castro gets to blame all of his nations woes on the big bad Yanqis. If we lift the sanctions and the Cuban people find that they STILL don't have 'electricity and clean running water 24 x 7' etc. one can only assume that they will begin to wonder why. But as it stands now, if they wonder those things aloud, Castro gets to point to the embargo. We lift it, he loses us as his scapegoat and doesn't leave the balme with a lot of places to fall except on his head.

 

[Kerberos]

Frankly, I don't know that sanctions ever work. They haven't against Castro, certainly.

But what's the argument for lifting them? If you could buy cell phones and computers and Nike sneakers and good clothing and Persian rugs and Gatorade and God knows what else, the economic advantage to ending the embargo might make sense.

But what could you buy from Cuba? Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's? And cigars, which, face it, are not a significant portion of our trade.

So really, the economic harm to the U.S. from the sanctions is insignificant.

So why should we lift them? We'd only be helping to prop up and further enrich a murdering dictator, for little benefit to ourselves. Where is the outrage from the bien-pensants here? They get their britches in such a twist because we support other dictators, then when we say that at least we won't support this one, they get their britches in a twist over that. How do you get on the bien-pensants list of approved dictators? Musharref would like to know.

A few points:

1) Supporting a dictator, in everyday usage, refers to something a bit more substantial than allowing your citizens to visit the country and not having an embargo against the country, say selling high tech weapons, giving them money or favourable loans, sharing intelligence or military cooperation; stuff like that.

2) if the sanctions don't work against Castro, which you say they don't, then removing them doesn't prop him up.

3) Reasonable people might feel that a more substantial reason for sanctions is desirable than: "it doesn't hurt us.. Much". You know - that the policy be neutral to the US or perhaps even, for the true radical, that it actually provide some minor benefit.

 

[HarryKeogh]

question: Will Fidel Castro ever die?

 

[Cleon]

question: Will Fidel Castro ever die?

Well, if he doesn't, then ironically somebody in Florida wants to give him $1 million.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sugar, which we seem to be able to get anyway at ridiculously cheap prices - under 20 cents a pound last time I checked, so who needs Castro's?

The price of sugar is artificially inflated in the US. It's much, much cheaper internationally. However, the sugar industry is very wealthy, and contributes heavily to political candidates who support the special protections the industry gets from the government. Foreign sugar is tariffed all to hell.

We're not the only ones with a protected sugar industry. So do the EU and Japan. There was a fuss over it between the EU and a number of other countries a couple of years ago. Countries like Brazil produce a lot of sugar but can't sell it in the richest markets.

America does like to promote the values of capitalism, but is strangely reluctant to practice them in certain areas. Ending the embargo on Cuba will have zero effect on sugar prices in the US. Cuban sugar would be required to sell at the same artificially high prices, or not allowed to sell at all.

 

[BPSCG]

Actually he says that as if the embargoes is one of the causes of the Cuban people's ill's whether there are other and greater problems doesn't matter the slightest.

Could you please rewrite that sentence so it makes grammatic sense? I have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks

News Flash: About 25% of the world Economy is the US (hint: 25%>10%). A bit more than 25% if we use norminal exchange rates

Thanks for looking that up. The point I was making was that there's a hell of a lot of trade in the world that doesn't flow through the U.S.; if the main reason for a country's economic misery is lack of trade with the U.S., then there's something seriously flawed with that country's economic system. If the U.S. doesn't buy Cuba's sugar, it has to buy more of someone else's, and the worldwide demand for sugar won't change as a result. That means that Cuba will get the same amount of money for a pound of its sugar whether the U.S. buys any of it or not. The embargo doesn't affect that. This is Economics 101.

The same holds true for tourism. If Americans don't go to Cuba, they'll go to the Virgin Islands or Jamaica. But the worldwide demand for Caribbean hotel rooms won't change. Cuba will get the same amount of money for its hotel rooms whether the U.S. rents any of them or not.

Do you really believe that these ridicilous straw men improve on your arguments?

The straw man is the claim that the U.S. embargo hurts the Cuban economy. It would only hurt if the rest of the world's demand for Cuban products was insufficient to fill the supply. Show me that excess Cuban sugar is being dumped into the ocean or that Havana luxury hotels are closing for lack of U.S. customers, and you might have a case.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That means that Cuba will get the same amount of money for a pound of its sugar whether the U.S. buys any of it or not.

No, it won't, but not because of the embargo. Cuban sugar sold outside the US will not be able to command the same price because sugar prices are controlled in the US. They are higher.

Which is hilarious, actually. Imagine, the embargo ends. Castro dies. Cuba embraces capitalism, and gets ready to sell sugar to America, the biggest sugar consuming country ever.

And we tell it no, because our sugar industry shouldn't be subjected to market forces. It would cut into its profits.

 

[BPSCG]

And we tell it no, because our sugar industry shouldn't be subjected to market forces. It would cut into its profits.

Not so much "we tell it no," as, "You sell your sugar for less than our U.S. producers can sell it, so we're going to tax your sugar to bring the price up to the same level as U.S. producers."

Which, I agree, is ridiculous. If the U.S. producers can't make a profit selling sugar, they should get out of the business.

But the embargo or lack of one doesn't affect any of this. Cuba would still get the same amount of money for a pound of sugar. It's just that the U.S. treasury would get some additional revenue on the side, in the form of the tariff on Cuban sugar.

 

[FreeChile]

That's a conclusion, not an argument.
Perhaps they should be tougher, then. How do you feel about worldwide UN sanctions? All the bien-pensants considered them to be a good idea when they didn't like South Africa's apartheid government. Why shouldn't they be applied against Cuba?

What are you talking about? You seem to invoke the UN when it suits your interest.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FOR THIRTEENTH STRAIGHT YEAR, ADOPTS RESOLUTION
ON ENDING UNITED STATES EMBARGO AGAINST CUBA
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/ga10288.doc.htm

For the thirteenth straight year, the General Assembly today overwhelmingly adopted a resolution on the perennial necessity of ending the four-decade-old economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States against Cuba.

By a recorded vote of 179 in favour to four against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau and United States) with one abstention (Federates States of Micronesia), the Assembly expressed its concern that since its earliest resolution on the issue in 1991, further measures had been taken by the United States to strengthen and extend the restrictions, which adversely affected the Cuban people and Cuban nationals living in other countries.

 

[Lurker]

Not so much "we tell it no," as, "You sell your sugar for less than our U.S. producers can sell it, so we're going to tax your sugar to bring the price up to the same level as U.S. producers."

Which, I agree, is ridiculous. If the U.S. producers can't make a profit selling sugar, they should get out of the business.

But the embargo or lack of one doesn't affect any of this. Cuba would still get the same amount of money for a pound of sugar. It's just that the U.S. treasury would get some additional revenue on the side, in the form of the tariff on Cuban sugar.

Let's try that logic on another commodity - oil. Let's assume Venzuela decided nto to sell their oil to the US anymore and instead sold it all to other countries. Supplies of US oil would certainly start to come from other countries (Saudi, etc...) Do you thinkt he price of oil would remain the same for the US or go up? One less supplier that we can bargain with. I say it goes up.

I think the failure in your logic, BPSCG, is you assume perfect elasticity in the product (sugar).

Lurker

 

[bob_kark]

Certainly Cuba seems bad, but what makes Cuba worse than China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, etc...

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Being born and raised here in South Florida, I got both sides of this debate from my mother's left and right breasts.

Firstly, the Cuban embargo does nothing to diminish the power Castro has. In fact, by making the country less wealthy, it makes the populace more dependant on him. It's possible for people to get permission to visit with families still living in Cuba, but it's a beurocratic nightmare, and post 9/11 idiocy doesn't help.

There are far worse dictactorships in the world than Cuba. Before anyone jumps up and down and calls me a bleeding heart liberal, I'll just let you know that my grandfather narrowly avoided a firing squad ordered by Castro. My mother's entire family narrowly escaped being murdered by Castro. However, I am not going to pretend, as some do, that the oppression my people have endured is the worst oppression there has ever been. Castro is not the devil. He stopped being a boogeyman sometime after the USSR dissolved. Trade with Cuba can only make the country more affluent. Cuba has a lot to offer the U.S., in tourism, and in thousands of doctors, and nurses whom we sorely need. The Cuban people are well educated. They are also poor, in deperate need of wok, and all the medical professionals in Cuba would give anything they had for an MRI, and the medical technology we enjoy.

The Cuban exile community in America is in a stasis bubble. They think we're still in the 60's. They're furious at the Democrats because a man who was assinated in Texas two generations ago ddn't fulfill his promises about the Bay of Pigs. That's why, to this day, all a Republican has to do is raise the Castro boogeyman to gain their mindless support. The embargo is mildly destructive to the U.S., but it's monsterously disastarous to the Cuban people. Castro uses the Embargo as an excuse for every failing in the government. The Cuban people are told the reason El Revolucion hasn't brought them prosperity is because the Yankee devil is making them poor.

Do you know what the worst part is? Castro's right.

 

[BPSCG]

What are you talking about? You seem to invoke the UN when it suits your interest.

Read, and learn.

On November 6, 1962, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 1761, condemning South African apartheid policies. On August 7, 1963 the United Nations Security Council established a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Following the Soweto uprising in 1976 and its brutal suppression by the apartheid regime, the arms embargo was made mandatory by the UN Security Council on November 4, 1977 and South Africa became increasingly isolated internationally. Numerous conferences were held and the United Nations passed resolutions condemning South Africa, including the World Conference Against Racism in 1978 and 1983. A significant divestment movement started, pressuring investors to refuse to invest in South African companies or companies that did business with South Africa. South African sports teams were barred from participation in international events, and South African culture and tourism were boycotted.

If international sanctions against South Africa were a good idea, why are they a bad idea for Cuba?