[quote]pat wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Cotton tried to assassinate Castro, too bad he didn’t.
Lots of people tried to assassinate Castro he is as indestructible as Keith Richards. It’s still a worth cause.[/quote]
However, if killing him simply means pulling the plug of his life support it is unsportsmanlike conduct.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
No. But we trade with plenty of people who are as bad or worse, so the moral case doesn’t hold up too well. And as a practical matter, sanctions don’t really work. They tend to unite authoritarian regimes against an outside enemy, who can be blamed for all the country’s ills (see Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc.). Generally, free trade advances American interests and ideals far better than isolating rogue states.[/quote]
They aren’t 90 miles off our coastline, either.
But to say Cuba is isolated is not true. There are only a handful of countries that refuse to trade with them.
The US is losing nothing by isolating them. Neither is Cuba.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
No. But we trade with plenty of people who are as bad or worse, so the moral case doesn’t hold up too well. And as a practical matter, sanctions don’t really work. They tend to unite authoritarian regimes against an outside enemy, who can be blamed for all the country’s ills (see Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc.). Generally, free trade advances American interests and ideals far better than isolating rogue states.
They aren’t 90 miles off our coastline, either.
But to say Cuba is isolated is not true. There are only a handful of countries that refuse to trade with them.
The US is losing nothing by isolating them. Neither is Cuba. [/quote]
Yup, that is part of the reason why the embargo didn’t work. They found plenty of willing trading partners. Yet, the people of Cuba are still piss poor. Gee, I wonder why? I have one cousin left there…Hopefully, she’ll be able to get out soon.
See, if you have to keep people in your country with force, it’s not a good sign that your policies are popular amoungst them.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
It’s the same parlor game we have seen over and over. And it never gets any smarter.[/quote]
Damn straight. If we were trading with Cuba, Lixy’d be bitching about us helping terrible dictators and keeping them in power.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Actions have consequences - and had we opened up trade with Castro, with the natural result being that Castro grew even fatter and richer from the trade relationship, the US would be blamed for contributing to keeping him in power.
It’s the same parlor game we have seen over and over. And it never gets any smarter.
No, you idiot! There’s a world of difference between the US government handing out money (think Pinochet, Mubarak, Zionists, etc.) and not interfering with trade.[/quote]
What exactly is the difference between Castro, Pinochet and Mubarak? All are dictators. Why is one not like the other? We are wrong when we support these people and wrong when we do not.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
No. But we trade with plenty of people who are as bad or worse, so the moral case doesn’t hold up too well. And as a practical matter, sanctions don’t really work. They tend to unite authoritarian regimes against an outside enemy, who can be blamed for all the country’s ills (see Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc.). Generally, free trade advances American interests and ideals far better than isolating rogue states.[/quote]
This is very true - and it’s one of the reasons we invaded Iraq (sanctions weren’t working, and weren’t going to start working). It’s particularly true of unilateral sanctions.
Sanctions and trade restrictions work much better with allies than with enemies.
Update: Dan Drezner on embargoes: http://www.theatlantic.com/audio/mcardle.mhtml
Generally on Cuba, this is a good post - and check the initial link for a really good post (formatting it for use here would be too much work at the moment):
[i]Many people embarrass themselves over Fidel Castro
Tyler Cowen
Here is one menagerie ( Los Gusanos--the Worms--Infest the Comment Section Tonight... ), with Brad DeLong parrying ably. A simple checklist would start with the question of whether an apologist has visited both the Dominican Republic and Cuba. And a non-communist Cuba could have done much better than the DR. It is a fascinating place for visitors, but right now the quality of life in Cuba isn’t close to that of the DR or for that matter Honduras, the second-biggest Latino mess in the hemisphere.
While we’re at it, let’s not forget northern Mexico or even central Mexico. It’s time to stop apologizing for communist dictatorships; are you really so taken with the idea of confiscating property as to overlook decades of tyranny, impoverishment, and human misery? Yes I am familiar with the UN social indicators; I say you need to visit each of these countries, preferably speaking Spanish, and then report back to me.[/i]
Before Castro came to power Americans used to flock to Havana for the sun, to party and gamble like they now go to Las Vegas or Miami.
If you look at pictures of the Vegas Strip in 1960 and today you can see just how much Cuba has lost out on economically.
There are people in Vegas and Miami who have profited handsomely from Castro.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The US is losing nothing by isolating them. Neither is Cuba. [/quote]
We’re losing the potential happiness that would be found in their cigars and baseball players.
That’s something =P
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
No. But we trade with plenty of people who are as bad or worse, so the moral case doesn’t hold up too well. And as a practical matter, sanctions don’t really work. They tend to unite authoritarian regimes against an outside enemy, who can be blamed for all the country’s ills (see Saddam’s Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, etc.). Generally, free trade advances American interests and ideals far better than isolating rogue states.
This is very true - and it’s one of the reasons we invaded Iraq (sanctions weren’t working, and weren’t going to start working). It’s particularly true of unilateral sanctions.
[/quote]
Probably true. But without diverting the thread, Tom Ricks has a different take on the subject, arguing that many people (USMC General and CENTCOM Commander Zinni for one) knew that Saddam’s military had been hobbled, both by sanctions and military strikes (Desert Fox). “Fiasco” is worth reading.
The Atlantic has a quickie article (and more importantly, a cool graphic that goes with it) on what Havana could look like after Castro:
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The US is losing nothing by isolating them. Neither is Cuba.
We’re losing the potential happiness that would be found in their cigars and baseball players.
That’s something =P[/quote]
Yeah, I could deal with a good Cuban cigar…mmmmmm.