Slashdot Mirror


Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

First time accepted submitter ltorvalds11 writes Cuba says its economy is suffering a "systematic worsening" due to a US embargo, the consequences of which Havana places at $1.1 trillion since Washington imposed the sanctions in 1960, taking into account the depreciation of the dollar against gold. "There is not, and there has not been in the world, such a terrorizing and vile violation of human rights of an entire people than the blockade that the US government has been leading against Cuba for 55 years," Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Abelardo Moreno told reporters. He also blamed the embargo for the difficulties in accessing internet on the island, saying that the United States creates an obstacle for companies providing broadband services in Cuba. Additionally, he said that the area is one of the "most sensitive" to the embargo, with economic losses estimated at $34.2 million. It is also the sector that has fallen "victim of all kinds of attacks" by the US, as violations of the Cuban radio or electronic space "promote destabilization" of Cuban society, the report notes. The damage to Cuban foreign trade between April 2013 and June 2014 amounted to $3.9 billion, the report said. Without the embargo, Cuba could have earned $205.8 million selling products such as rum and cigars to US consumers. Barack Obama last week signed the one-year extension of the embargo on Cuba, based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, created to restrict trade with countries hostile to the U.S..

78 of 540 comments (clear)

  1. RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Russian propaganda. These are the same idiots who claimed Russia wasn't ever invading Ukraine.

    1. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, RT is about as reliable as Fox News. If you assume that everything said is complete lies and the few things that are true are extremely skewed then you are pretty close to the truth.
      With that said, the US embargo against Cuba has not exactly been beneficial to either of the nations. All this time since the cold war could have been spent bringing Cuba closer to the US. Just opening up a bit with regards to trading would have done a lot.
      A better Cuban economy would benefit the US (How about cheap manufacturing on Cuba instead of in China?) and having a trading partner that close instead of a potential enemy there is a pretty nice deal.
      In my opinion the stance US has towards Cuba is pretty retarded.

    2. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      RT is directly controlled by the Russian govern.. well, Putin. I would say that makes Fox News slightly more trustworthy.

    3. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fox News is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, I haven't decided who is worse yet.

    4. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you will find that far fewer Ukrainians have died because of Rupert Murcoch.

    5. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh Jesus, here we go with the Communist boogieman. No junior, you were lied to, yes there were excesses in some places at certain times. Which surprise, surprise also describes the same time period in the West rather well. So no, no great Satan in evidence here, just an alternative social order with both good points and bad.

      Source: Born there, came to Canada when I was in my teens. There is less difference than most people in the west think.

    6. Re:RT.com? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Communists in power don't force people to drink vodka & eat borscht you sniveling coward, they confiscate all your belongings, outaw dissent & condemn people to hard prison or insane asylums without fair trials.

      No... that's what TYRANTS in power do. Just because we've had a lot of communist tyrants does not mean communism REQUIRES Tyrants (it doesn't) or that Tyrants are always communist (they aren't - in fact three of the worst tyrants of the 20th century were not - two were fascists [a form of capitalism] and one was a free market fundamentalist: Pinochet !)

      There are variations of communist philosophy that are forms of anarchism - such as Anton Pannekoek's "Council Communism", Robert Hahnel's Parecon, Noam Chomsky's brand of Anarcho-syndicalism or the kind of libertarian socialism practised in Andalusia (Southern Spain) during the first 20 years of the last century - and would probably still be there if the scale of the world wars hadn''t overwhelmed them and gotten all of Spain under a different tyrant (Franco) with yet another economic philosophy that was fairly unique (close enough to capitalism for Spain not to be targeted during the cold war, close enough to communism for the Russians not to target them either - somewhat like facism but not enough for either side to care).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well I was born there as welll and I got quite the opposite picture.

      Possibly your parents were communist activists.

      What I remember are long lines for toilet paper, shampoo and shoes.

      People imprisoned and killed on the streets. My Mom earning $3 per month.

    8. Re:RT.com? by phayes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Junior? I was born before JFK was assassinated & was an adult in Berlin days after the wall fell, bucko.

      So, the men & women I met from a number of different countries who described in detail their experiences of Communist rule that I briefly relayed were all liars.

      Source: Russians, Ex-eastern Germans, Cubans, Chinese, Romanians, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese. Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians.

      No, we should all believe a sniveling coward without the courage to post in his own name that claims that all the personal experiences and documented abuses of Communism are a "boogieman" [sic] because he left one (probably former) Communist ruled country before he was an adult. Your lies are transparently seen for what they are, coward: Voluntary ignorance.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    9. Re:RT.com? by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this +5? Yes, RT.com frequently publishes propaganda, but this story is available on any number of alternative news sites, and is based entirely on a report from the Cuban government itself. Unless you are suggesting RT.com has made the Cuban government write & publish this report, your comment is a fine example of an "ad hominem", and should be ignored as such.

    10. Re: RT.com? by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      My conclusion is that Canada sucks as bad as the USSR.

      Its a close call. Invading the Ukraine vs those stupid "Mountie" uniforms.

    11. Re: RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong. Full blown communism requires tyrants. How else are you going to confiscate all the private property, and constantly suppress voluntary economic interactions?

    12. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chicago 2012?

    13. Re:RT.com? by phayes · · Score: 2

      I agree that small scale communism has it's merits (kibbutzim being a good example where it works very well), but county size communism has failed every time, transforming itself over time into what should more properly be called fascism (rule by a small cadre) in many cases the boiling itself down to rule by tyrants. Thus IMO in the country sized communist systems, you're trying to draw a line where is no real difference.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    14. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my opinion the stance US has towards Cuba is pretty retarded.

      The politicians in the United States of Amerkia suckle at the teat of the "Miami Cubans" and in some cases literally suck on their genitalia to curry favor with this voting block. If any presidential candidate announced they would end the Cuban Embargo you can be certain the candidate would be not occupying the Oval Office. Most politicians are followers or consensus seekers, not leaders. Of course you should keep in mind the openness with which the United States Government promotes with China, a threat on par with the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Gotta get 'em cheap stuff at "Waly World" ya knows.

    15. Re:RT.com? by phayes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What country sized example of long term communist rule which doesn't turn into fascism or dictatorships are you referring to? I didn't see any. Note that I do not lump socialism in with communism.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    16. Re:RT.com? by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The U.S. embargo against Cuba is Russian propaganda??

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    17. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But far more Iraqi's did.

    18. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with communism in practice is that there is no real separation of powers (deemed unnecessary by communists, since they have truth and justice on their side), so the revolution is invariably hijacked by power hungry opportunists - see Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Remarkably (or perhaps not, as communism is a kind of ersatz religion), theocracies suffer from the exact same problem. The U.S. seem determined to show that Western democracies can play this game too once they decide expediency trumps constitutional concerns.

    19. Re:RT.com? by usuallylost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fascism is not "a form of capitalism" it is another form of socialism. The difference is that that under communism the means of production are outright owned by the state where as under fascism the preserve the illusion of individual, i.e. capitalism style, ownership. Actual economic control economic control under Fascism is actually state controlled. So it is not accurate to claim that Fascism is a form of capitalism it is more accurate to say it is a variation of Socialism. Just as Communism and the post war European economies are all variations of Socialism.

      As whether Communism requires tyranny it would seem that in practice it does. Simply because there are no examples where both Communism and freedom have co-existed for any significant period of time. From the evidence of what has happened it would appear that the level of control required by Communism, and Fascism for that matter, is simply unachievable without coercion. Entire populations simply don’t like surrendering complete control over their lives to the government. So no matter how high minded the Communist authorities start out they invariably have to adopt tyrannical policies in order to enact their program. Simply because there are always too many people who do not want it to enact it any other way.

      Where Socialism has managed to exist without becoming a tyranny is in places like Europe. Where they adopt a limited amount of Socialism but still allow people to pretty much live as they like. Socialism without freedom and a certain amount of Capitalism ends up in tyranny. Capitalism without a certain amount regulation and government intervention, i.e. Socialism, ends up in a different kind of tyranny. Fascism and Communism are just variations on the same theme and both invariably lead to tyranny.

    20. Re:RT.com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Huffington Post, MSBC and CNN.

    21. Re:RT.com? by Junta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure communism has manifested without tyranny. The issue is that human nature in practice doesn't let it scale to notable levels. Small communities being communist without tyranny happens ever so often. When you have the human connection face to face and there is not really any practical opportunity for some subset of the community to be overwhelmingly better off than the rest even if they had capitalism or tried, communism can work. However once one man is far enough from others to be somewhat apathetic toward them and/or perceive a chance for unreasonably better standard of living at the expense of others, the good facets of humanity that would enable communism go out the window.

      Of course the risk for a benevolent 'commune' with nice principles to turn to 'cult' seems pretty high, so I guess even this assessment gives human nature too much credit...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    22. Re:RT.com? by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      one was a free market fundamentalist: Pinochet

      Repeating a lie often enough does not make it true.

      Pinochet was resistant to free market, through most of 1974 his own style of handling economic problems left in the wake of Allende meant putting the army in charge of alleviating penuries through requisitions, rationning and distribution, and it was a complete failure. Chile kept printing money just like under Allende, leading to 300% inflation in 1974 and 1975.

      If Pinochet was, as you put it, a "free-market fundamentalist", then explain why did oil and copper industries remain state-owned all through his regime, and why did the fishing and forestry industries remain syndicate-run (CORFO) ? Why did he keep in place many programs of subsidies ? Why did he have several failing corporations bailed out (like the Osorno bank) ? Why did his constitution of 1980 keep copper resources as irrevocably public property ? Why was the Peso pegged to the USD, chinese-style, in the early 80s (leading to a monetary crisis and recession), instead of maintaining a free-floating exchange rate like Friedman advocated in his speeches and books ?

      Oh, right: that's because Pinochet was NOT a free-market advocate. He was not even right-wing either - his wife was a senator in the Radical Party, an ally of Allende's Unidad Popular, and he was a close collaborator of Allende until the coup d'état. Instead, his pragmatism at least let him put people who mostly were free-market enthusiasts in charge of some of his government's economic policies. He, himself, had no such convictions, he was just an autoritarian voluntarist. But I guess that makes for an insufficiently romantic narrative to convince you.

      Sergio de Castro Spikula was one such free-market enthusiast in Pinochet's government, and he had to bitterly fight (there even was one incident with a gun) with other members, like General Gustavo Leigh, Admiral José Toribio (president of the government's economic committee), or Raul Saez (the man who was responsible for planning the economy of Chile in the Junta), in order to get the reforms done.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    23. Re: RT.com? by VTBlue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean like economic sanctions that prevent me from buying Cuban cigars in a voluntary economic transaction?

      *see what I did there?* :)

    24. Re:RT.com? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your second sentence already shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production. The rest of your rant just makes it even more clear.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:RT.com? by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please. Fascism is NOT a form of socialism. It's incompatible with marxist doctrine, through and through. Rather it's the fabled "third way" that is neither free-market nor communism. People who conflate fascism with socialism are just as wrong as those who conflate it with capitalism.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    26. Re: RT.com? by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

      How have people voted this up? I'm not a political scholar, but the goals of communism are generally diametrically opposed to rule by a dictator.

      Communism works on small scales. Family scales, generally. I'd give my sister money if she needed it. She'd give me something that I needed. We don't have an economic transaction--we do things based on our mutual benefit. We share because we know that in the future, it'll probably come out even.

      It seems to me that real communism wouldn't require anyone to dictate anything because people would be acting communally. They would willingly pool their resources, share and take care of one another. Tribal societies are and were like this.

      Scaling up communism has always been the problem. It's easy to come up with scenarios where it works on small scales. It's the scaling up that lets the tyrants in. There's always an opportunist that wants to be the top of the heap. Those people aren't communists at all, I reckon.

      Capitalism, so far, has scaled better than communism. There are a lot of problems with it (and most of them seem to be a matter of governments being too hands off, rather than too hands on, if you ask me), but it seems to have done a better job distributing resources than communism has. But if millions of people ever decide, en masse, to give up their possessions and work communally and REFUSE to allow a dictator or a leader, maybe it would work.

    27. Re:RT.com? by Technician · · Score: 2

      An embargo is usually in place to encourage a country to change a practice hostile to the US. When the leadership changes positions and is no longer hostile to the US, the embargo is lifted, unless things don't change.

      This started about the time of the Cuban Missle Crisis. Cuba has maintained unfriendly to the US ties. This has not changed. Thus the embargo status has remained. Lifing the embargo for Cuba to rebuild missle bases aimed at the US is not going to happen. They are too close to defend against missles launched from Cuba. Keeping missles out of cuba is the reson for the embargo. The US does not want the same relationship Isreal has with Gaza with bombs lobbed over the border to keep things stirred up.

      At the moment there are no bombs and missles, unlike other close neighbors that don't get along. Screaming about economic impact of an embargo is not going to fix this.

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    28. Re:RT.com? by rjstanford · · Score: 2

      The BBC is a good bet. The international site of CNN is fairly solid. And actually, MSNBC - while they're far more left-leaning than Fox - would be considered neutral by most of the rest of the West and fair far better on fact checking than you might expect. The "liberal media" generally leans right (as happens when consolidation allows it to be mostly owned by a few billionaires), so it ends up looking far more "biased" than it actually is.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    29. Re:RT.com? by jbolden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In 2009 Obama made massive changes to our policy losing restrictions. He reached out. A response thanking Obama, arguing for better relations and backing Obama in international forms would have worked. Cuba could have given Obama a diplomatic win and won an end to the poor relationship with the USA.

    30. Re:RT.com? by Creepy · · Score: 2

      To be fair, all communism so far has been dictatorships from the beginning. Since communism is an economic system, there is no reason they have to be, however. A communist-republic is perfectly feasible. Just saying they don't turn into dictatorships, they already are.

        Fascism I wouldn't say, as it ties too much into expansionism and racial conflict rather than social conflict, though it seems Putin is having a go at part of Fascist doctrine (the belief that strong countries have a right to claim territory from weak ones).

    31. Re:RT.com? by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ISTM that ALL the prisoners in Gitmo are political prisoners. Clearly the ones held without trial are such. Possibly in some cases there are valid reasons, but that has not be publicly proven, so the defalut position is that they are innocent. I feel that I'm understating the case, but don't know how to properly put it more strongly. Let me try this....

      If they have committed a crime, they should be brought to trial. If they have not committed a crime, they should never have been held captive.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    32. Re:RT.com? by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      RT is directly controlled by the Russian govern.. well, Putin. I would say that makes Fox News slightly more trustworthy.

      In US, Fox News controls the government.

    33. Re:RT.com? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      However, I've seen what look like reasonably, happy, free, advanced countries under democracy and capitalism with some degree of socialist influence. Finding examples of such countries under any other system is a lot harder. I'm not saying a communist democracy is impossible, I'm saying that it seems unlikely and I haven't seen one on any significant scale. There's lots of really neat ideas for running countries and economies, and not all of them work. I classify communism as a really neat idea (I figure that Marx was half right - there's lots of bad things about capitalism, particularly the variety at the time, but he didn't have anything near a workable solution), but I have yet to see it work on a national scale.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  2. Ignorance is self-righteous posturing by src1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "There is not, and there has not been in the world, such a terrorizing and vile violation of human rights of an entire people than the blockade that the US government has been leading against Cuba for 55 years,"

    Ha ha ha ha! Funny guy. He needs to read a history book - or even a current weekly magazine.

    Abretardo Morono - pushing the limits of ignorant hyperbole!

    1. Re: Ignorance is self-righteous posturing by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the Khmer Rouge or the Rwandan Akazu: they had less to work with; but killing north of 20% of your country's population really shows a commitment to atrocity.

    2. Re:Ignorance is self-righteous posturing by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      I am genuinely baffled at how the embargo is supposed to support US policy interests(either idealistic, cynical, or both); but alleged damages that high do seem to suggest that the "It's pointless, they'll just trade with the EU and BRIC and things" theory is limited at best. I honestly would have expected a smaller effect myself. I just can't fathom why anyone thinks it's a worthwhile plan.

      At this point the embargo is there solely for the "I'm right as long as I don't admit I was wrong" effect. In that regard, it is highly effective. The other possible explanation is to serve as a warning to others (i.e. nations with resources we might actually want, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, etc) such that they know any further steps toward socialism would lead to economic disaster even worse that what they have already endured.

  3. I don't get it by Torp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The righteous communists have a need to trade with the capitalist imperialists? Won't the ghost of Stalin provide for all?

    --
    I apologize for the lack of a signature.
    1. Re:I don't get it by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Cuba had oil . . . the embargo would be over really fast.

      Cuban cigar smokers in the US don't have a PAC to push through changes. They're just not a big enough special interest group.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:I don't get it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you understand how communism is supposed to work. Trade is desirable as long as the benefits are shared with the workers not just the private owners.

      How can you hate something you know so little about?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:I don't get it by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      No it wouldn't. The embargo is only about pacifying Cuban-American voters. If it was to battle communism then we wouldn't have normalized trade relations with Vietnam.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  4. $1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Works to something like $20 Billion a year. That's a credible figure. We do $650 billion with Canada in a year, and Cuba ain't that much smaller.

    The problem with their argument is that whenever a US President tries to reduce tensions, they do something to ratchet them back up. For example, Obama was inaugurated in Jan of '09, announces easing the embargo by allowing families in the US to visit and send money more easily in April, and by December some poor schmuck (Alan Gross) is rotting in a Cuban jail for bringing computer equipment in for Jewish groups. It's true that if you're an evil dictatorship stopping your local people from doing that is not unreasonable, and it;s true our government paid for it, but it's also true that you could easily stop him seizing his computers and deporting his ass. Now if Obama ever does anything nice for Cuba (such as sticking his neck out on ending the embargo) people supporting the embargo strongly have a trump card: why would we trade with a country that is holding one of our guys in prison for the crime of helping people access the internet?

    It would cost them literally nothing to let this guy go, but they insist on keeping him in prison where he can only prevent them from accessing that $20 billion a year export market.

    Which means most independent observers have long concluded the Castros like the embargo, because it allows them to claim everything that is wrong with the country is Evil Foreign Gringo's fault. Which justifies things like arresting guys for bringing in computer equipment.

    1. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which is all the more reason to lift the embargo, so that this lie can not be told any more. Without the embargo the current regime would probably have a lot more trouble staying in power.

    2. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but it's still an utterly stupid policy.

      If America had just allowed free trade with Cuba the inflow of US culture into the country would've long turned it into a pro-US state - it's the policy of isolation that's keeping it hostile in the first place.

      There's no way a country that small, and that close to the US could hold out as a communist nation in the face of unrestricted trade with the US - it'd become so utterly dependent on the US that it'd simply have no choice but to bow down to US wishes and culture.

      There are times where I do support the US (strikes against IS, stance on Ukraine) and there are times where I'll happily call it out as stupid (Iraq), this is one of those times where it's stupid, where the policy is wholly self-defeating, and where the only people that suffer from the policy are the largely innocent general populace of Cuba.

      The fall of the USSR was a prime opportunity to turn Cuba around, Russia facing bankruptcy withdrew almost all funding for Cuba and left it in the shit. Had the US taken that opportunity to drop restrictions, and normalise relations then Cuba would be as ex-USSR and as pro-USA as Poland is nowadays. Instead, the US continued it's bone-headed embargos such that now that Russia is becoming a resurgent pain in the ass Cuba is more than happy to take money to facilitate the reopening of the USSR's largest external listening base right off the coast of the US on Cuban soil.

      As foreign policy goes, the US' policy on Cuba is probably one of the single most stupid and short-sighted foreign policies there is.

    3. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by iris-n · · Score: 2

      As far as I know the Cuban government wanted to exchange this guy for Cuban prisioners kept by the US, the Cuban Five. The US refused.

      These Cubans went to the US to disrupt the operations of anti-Castro terrorist organizations based on Miami, and for that they were sentenced to 15 years in jail, the same sentence that befell the American guy.

      So I do understand that Cuba wouldn't want to give up on their only bargaining chip to free its agents. It's a sad state of affairs, really. So much could be gained if there were a little bit of goodwill on both sides.

      --
      entropy happens
    4. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by drfred79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Venezuela is an excellent counter argument. They are becoming just as dictatorial and scapegoating the United States. But the current administration turns a blind eye to ideological equals. The embargo is not a contributing factor. We need to stop ignoring and forgetting Cuba and blast their human rights violations.

    5. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The purpose of the policy is not economic or ideological, it is to punish a country that chose to stop being an US colony and actually exercise the independence that was only supposed to be on paper.

      Cuba is hardly a model of economic progress or human rights, but that's not the reason.

      Very much like Iran.

    6. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would presume that that question is an attempt to bait me into saying "freedom", "democracy" and so forth so that you can say hogwash and point to examples where American's freedoms have been curbed, or democracy has been a farce.

      But I'm more pragmatic than that, American culture is imperfect, it has flaws, many of them, but there's also one thing that's clear - it's responsible for better levels of wealth, education, and freedom than you find in communist dictatorships.

      So to answer your question, US culture is, simply put, not communist dictatorship culture, it's something that's objectively better for most people, it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be - better is good enough.

    7. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by dave420 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Scapegoating? That would imply the US's hands are clean, which it seems they probably are not, as the US supported the military coup against a democratically-elected leader, something South & Central America does not take too lightly, given the US's track record of destroying democracy in those regions.

    8. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by Xest · · Score: 2

      Of course there's no evidence to support it because it's not actually ever happened (though there are similar examples showing it can happen). There is however evidence to support the contrary - that maintaining the embargo has maintained hostility and hasn't ever worked.

      "As a rule, most countries with differing political and social polices tend to be hostile to us, regardless of our fiscal polices with them."

      Are you sure about that? I think you may have a rather broad view of "hostile", because basically the whole of Europe, much of South and Central America, parts of Africa, and large swathes of South East Asia as well as a number of middle east countries are most definitely not generally hostile to you. They may take issue with some things that you do or say but that's not the same thing as being overtly hostile.

      Compare and contrast to what happened in Europe with the fall of the USSR, Europe embraced ex-USSR states rather than punish them for once being part of "the enemy" and as such those states have become modern progressive nation, integral parts of and friends of the European Union.

      Given what is happening in Ukraine now, tell me, if the US had treated Poland in the way it treats Cuba then do you think Poland would be such a pro-American nation as it is now or do you think it would've been dragged back towards Russia becoming deeply anti-American if America had shunned it like Cuba? America and Europe's embrace of ex-USSR states is an exact example of what embracing rather than isolating can achieve so your assertion that there are no examples of this happening is clearly false.

      But perhaps more relevant is the fact that Europe and Canada do in fact have better relations with Cuba than the US, and whilst they're not close enough to Cuba to have much impact they do have fairly good relations for the most part. Cuba is a common holiday destination for Canadians and Europeans alike and we're welcomed there for it, at this point the US embargo is literally the only thing remaining in preventing it heading fully West and time is ticking - new links to Venezuela, renewed interest from Russia mean the opportunity to finally bring Cuba in from the cold is rapidly disappearing as you push it back towards the Russia/Venezuelan alliance.

      But then, your call for nuking of the place doesn't exactly paint you as a particularly smart individual, so you probably still wont get this.

    9. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      If you think China and Russia really want to wipe you off the face of the earth you have been brainwashed by the propaganda.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by bazorg · · Score: 2

      I thought the reason for punishment was that the cold war balance of power was disrupted by Cuba in a way that many millions of people USA could have lost a nuclear war before the USA could fire their own missiles at the USSR. Did I get that totally wrong from this side of the Atlantic?

    11. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by isilrion · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did I get that totally wrong from this side of the Atlantic?

      Kind of. The embargo started two years before the missile crisis, so unless there was some time travel involved, the missile crisis did not cause the embargo. (Of course, it also didn't make it better.) It started also before the failed Bay of Pigs invasion that forced Cuba to fully ally with the Soviet Union, which paved the way to the missile crisis.

      The embargo was retaliation for the nationalization of american properties in 1960, which, to my recollection (but I hated history classes, so I'm probably wrong), occurred in response to the owners shutting down production to destabilize the newly formed government. During the missile crisis it briefly evolved into a full blown blockade. After the missile crisis, it has gotten worse ("due" to the continuing alliance with the soviets), until the fall of the Soviets... when it got even worse (Torricelli act, 1992).

      I.

    12. Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      The "they were only trying to stop fanatical anti-Castro terrorism" story is their version. The US version is that Cuban Five were also trying to infiltrate Southern Command, which is the US Military command responsible for everything we do in Latin America. Moreover the Cubans used intelligence from one of the Five to destroy that Cessna they blew up back in '98. The Cuban story isn't particularly credible. If you're Cuba you don't send five spies to the US without a side mission of "infiltrate the Southern Command" because there's no way in hell you believe that the US Military isn't involved in anti-Cuban shenanigans.

      So no, they aren't gonna get those five guys back until their sentences run out. Rene Gonzales is already out.

  5. Re:The sins of the father by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

    The sins of the father should not be carried by the son. I would continue the embargo for 7 more years and then force Cuba to allow US companies to open up shop there.

    Why 7 more?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  6. Re:Free Alan Gross by mean+pun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure the United States would be more willing to consider ending the embargo if Alan Gross was freed from prison.

    `more willing' in this case would mean saying 'No, no, no way' to ending the embargo, rather than 'No, no, no, no way'.

    In other words, it is the political reality in the US that makes this impossible, not the imprisonment of a single guy.

  7. Re:US is... by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you really want to mess up Cuba - drop the embargo and flood them with goods.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  8. Unavailability by drfred79 · · Score: 2

    We're sorry but Cuban political prisoners were not available for comment. Electrical engineers had attempted to increase internet access in Cuba but fled to the freedom of the United States when they were told censorship doesn't allow true internet with scary freedom of speech. http://youtu.be/v5zmNRGAUQY

  9. Re:US is... by drfred79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... a fucked up country full of paranoid war hawks and religious whack-jobs, that's about what you'd expect from america.

    Happy September 11th. If I wished to say those things about the United States I'd even be able to do so as a citizen. If you're an American then congratulations, you're in one of the only countries that you can do that. If you're not American I don't intend to stifle your freedom of speech, I just dare you to say that about you're own country.

  10. Value of nationalized assets? by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder what the value of American-owned assets nationalized by Castro would be worth today had they never been nationalized. My guess is that it has to be at least Cuba's "cost" or worse.

    It'd also be interesting to know the value of the lost productivity imposed by Cuba's communist economics.

  11. Re:The sins of the father by tburkhol · · Score: 2

    The US Army is hardly the world's largest. Get a grip.

    In terms of headcount, the US has the 3rd largest military, behind China and India. (North Korea is 4th) The US military employs 70% more people than the Russian military.

    In terms of spending, the US has no close competition. The US spends 3.5 times as much as the next largest spender (China), and accounts, by itself, for more than a third of global military spending.

  12. Complex nation by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Cuba is a complex nation with both good and bad points and we should not adopt just the American view towards Cuba. First the revolution in Cuba went astray and many good people were killed or had their lives ruined. There is also no doubt that Cuba backed a hostile Soviet Union during the cold war. There is also no doubt that prior to Castro American organized crime ran rampant in Cuba and the public in Cuba was being raped by corruption. Some Cubans did better after the communist gained power just as some lost their lives, property or freedom. Meanwhile we all act like blissful idiots by avoiding the real issues. Island nations often lack enough natural resources to provide a decent life for their populations. The type of government does very little to change that. For example if Haiti were to go communist today they would still be a very poor nation. If Cuba adopted the government and laws of Sweden or Switzerland or the US Cuba would still be a suffering nation. Natural resources shrink when used. Every year Cuba has less natural resources. With strict birth control and population control such as allowing no immigration at all Cuba could shrink its population and there would be more natural resources per person which can cause more wealth per person. Civil unrest and revolution are all expressions of over population which we tend to see as poverty. Picture it this way. We give each form of government a resting place in its own paper bag. We place each paper bag in a coffin full of fish guts and seal the coffin. We come back after a month and each form of government will have the same wretched stink. The form of the government does not control the prosperity of a nation. If we try to judge nations by their ability to survive we would be talking about strong monarchies in Egypt or China where concepts of fairness simply were not in play and a monarch with crushing powers determined every little thing.

  13. Re:Is the embargo really affecting them? by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    And you can somehow tell how much better off they'd be with the embargo lifted by walking around and looking at things? How did you come by this superpower?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  14. Re:US is... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mainly foreigners who are accused of wanting to say it with guns and bombs, but there's no actual evidence and no judicial process or civilian oversight.

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  15. Act first think later by Murdoch5 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well the US acted in 1960 to place the embargo, we're still waiting for them to actually think it through. It's funny that Cuba actually has a better medical system then the US, and it's state funded, probably what the embargo was about in the first place.

  16. Re:US is... by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    >Happy September 11th. If I wished to say those things about the United States I'd even be able to do so as a citizen. If you're an American then congratulations, you're in one of the only countries that you can do that. If you're not American I don't intend to stifle your freedom of speech, I just dare you to say that about you're own country.

    My country has a government filled with extreme levels of corruption, the police is so corrupt as to be almost entirely ineffective - but when they do actually do anything it generally ends in unarmed poor (usually black) people being shot for daring to complain about it. the military is really only useful as an excuse for corrupt arms-deal contracts (mostly to buy equipment nobody is ever trained to actually be able to use), the president couldn't remove his head from his arse without major surgery, the opposition parties are no less corrupt and completely ineffective which has turned our once lofty intellectual political discourse into a farce of clowns throwing manure at each other.

    Basically - we're exactly like America, only with a lot more poor people. Oh - and I have MORE civil liberties than YOU do.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  17. Re:Free Alan Gross by nbauman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gross was a saboteur, trying to overthrow the Cuban government. His wife finally admitted as much, as I wrote above.

    He was getting money under the Helms-Burton Act. The purpose of the Helms-Burton act was to overthrow the Cuban government. They were paying him to try the unworkable idea of setting up an alternate Internet, to help the Cuban Jews overthrow the Castro government. The Cuban Jews actually got along very well with Raul Castro.

    The Cubans want to exchange Gross for 3 Cuban intelligence agents who are in prison right now. They came to the U.S. as undercover agents to monitor the Miami Cubans who were committing acts of terrorism against Cuba, such as blowing up a Cuban plane, and bombing tourist spots.

    The U.S. has refused the exchange. The anti-Cuban hard-liners would rather leave Gross in prison than improve relations.

  18. Re:Cuba could have lifted it ages ago by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

    Cuba (Fidel Castro) doesn't want the embargo lifted. They know that lifting the embargo would be a threat to the command-and-control Communist regime. Censorship and the ban of capitalist media was unlike what's happening now in N. Korea. It was only recently around 2007 that the average Cuban can purchase an won their own PC. Even Internet access is still restricted.

    My guess (and just a guess) Raul Castro will allow for greater reforms once his brother dies.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  19. Underdevelopment Theory by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    And here we were taught by Under-development theorists (Marxists) that poverty was caused by exploitation by the capitalist countries (Core-Periphery) and that the solution was to have underdeveloped countries have less trade with capitalist countries. All sorts of regimes copied that (high import tarrifs, refusing outside companies from going in,etc...). Free market economists said that would create more poverty. Marxist economists and theorists said "bullsh1t." So. According to Marxist theorists and economists from the 1950s to the 1990s (out of grad school now - things may have changed) the Cuban embargo should have helped Cuba by saving them from capitalist exploitation.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  20. Re:US is... by plasm4 · · Score: 2

    You really think that America is one of the only countries where you can say something like that?

  21. Re:US is... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well our constitution was written much later - with a lot of inspiration from the US - which is why our bill of rights and the US one is very similar.
    However there is also one or two items from more recent sources (for starters the entire International Convention on Human Rights).

    There is also a few liberties we've taken from things like the German constitution - which deal with the realities of countries that had experienced gross human rights abuses - such as a right to dignity.

    The right to dignity for example has several clauses - such as a positive obligation placed on the government to ensure there is quality housing for all citizens and a requirement that evictions can only be done with a court order. Another impact is that it informs the right not to be discriminated against - here a business cannot deny service to anybody on discriminatory grounds. Recently a wedding venue wanted to refuse a gay couple the right to marry there on religious grounds and lost their case - the constitutional right not to be discriminated against on sexual orientation means that if you operate a business you MUST serve ALL sexual orientations. There's no obligation to approve of gay marriage, but you cannot as a business discriminate against it (a church could refuse to host a service, but a church is not a business).

    Not everybody thinks these are freedoms, some people would say the above example reduces the business owner's freedom for example - and it's true that this is a trade-off but the right not to be discriminated against protects freedoms (such as freedom of association and movement) for many, many people - if a small minority has a very slight decrease in freedom (while making money out of the people they aren't allowed to mistreat) then this is a worthwhile trade-off in my mind.

    In some regards the fact that our constitution is only 20 years old has been advantageous - it means that we have all the rights the US has - most of which were not in their original constitution (Everything with "amendment" in it) right in the basic document, and we still have the option of future amendments if we need them.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  22. the moral by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    The moral of the story is if you own some crappy little island right next to the US and you have crap for local resources, don't ally with some broke ass country like Russia.

  23. Works both ways by Jesrad · · Score: 2

    And I wonder what kind of counter-claim of damages the USA can pretend they too suffered in the loss of trade. Probably just about the same amount in total.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  24. Overall death toll under communism: 100 Million by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let's not forget that the best estimates for the death of communist regimes killing their own people is right around 100 million people. Both The Black Book of Communism and R.J. Rummel's Death by Government come up with roughly the same number of people killed.

    Communism is incompatible with both human rights and a healthy economy, and never has, never can, and never will meet the needs of its own people or offer better lives than those under capitalism.

    Embargoes have nothing to do with it...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  25. Did you go outside tourist Havana? by Nova+Express · · Score: 2

    Michael Totten did, and he found a police state overseeing wrenching poverty, complete with shortages for essentials and goods of retched quality.

    In short: Communism.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Did you go outside tourist Havana? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2
      That's the most absurd article I've read on the subject in quite some time. Here's a few reasons why:

      “Contrary to the myth spread by the revolution,” wrote Alfred Cuzan, a professor of political science at the University of West Florida, “Cuba’s wealth before 1959 was not the purview of a privileged few. . . . Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as Argentina and Chile.”

      Ha! Alfred Cuzan was born in Havana in 1948 and became a naturalized American citizen in 1969. It seems overwhelmingly likely that his family, much like virtually all Cuban expats of that era, were part of the oppressive capitalist caste of Cuban society that was specifically targeted by Castro's policies. His impartiality is questionable, to say the least. Additionally, he references Argentina and Chile as though they were shining beacons of middle-class awesomeness. He's actually saying "Cuban society was as much of a middle-class society as any other shithole suffering from massive disparity of wealth distribution", but the way he says it paints a different picture. Consequently, I'll just say Alfred Cuzan is a lying sack of shit with a personal vendetta against the Castro administration, regretably so similar to many other Cuban expats of his generation.

      In 1958, Cuba had a higher per-capita income than much of Europe.

      Somebody didn't do too well in math class. Citing per-capita income (i.e. an arithmetic mean) as evidence of equitable distribution of wealth (i.e. standard deviation) is a non sequitur. Michael Totten fails at numbers. Additionally, I'll just point out that a high per-capita income is consistent with claims that the wealthy elites of pre-Castro Cuba were raking in the cash at the expense of everyone else. How did the median household income in pre-Castro Cuba compare against much of Europe? That's what I thought.

      “Between 1960 and 1976,” Cuzan says, “Cuba’s per capita GNP in constant dollars declined at an average annual rate of almost half a percent. The country thus has the tragic distinction of being the only one in Latin America to have experienced a drop in living standards over the period.”

      That's interesting. 1960, eh. Let's see, what happened in 1960 that could possibly explain this unfortunate circumstance. Indeed, Castro rose to power in 1959, that could explain it. Let me dig through my history books and... wait... what's this? Oh look! The US embargo against Cuba started in 1960? The same US that was Cuba's largest trade partner? What a fascinating coincidence!

      That's around where I stopped reading. Based on the contents of the article you linked to, I can say with confidence that Michael Totten is either a disingenuous asshat or a raging imbecile. By linking to this propaganda piece, you've put your own credibility in a questionable light.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  26. Re:What is fair? by isilrion · · Score: 2

    When someone has plans to point a nuclear missile at you in your back yard, you do what you can to protect yourself. The net result of the Cuban 'experiment' is a large number of well-educated people who have little or no resources to use that educational wealth.

    The missile crisis happend two years after the embargo started, and one year a a failed invasion from the US. It has been hardened even after the fall of the soviets (Torricelli, Helms Burton). Even now, it is still actively applied against third countries. Claiming that the embargo was caused by the missile crisis denotes a profound ignorance of history, and a profound unwillingness to educate oneself.

  27. Re:Cuba could have lifted it ages ago by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

    Your asinine statement is predicated on the idea that international trade is a -requirement- for a communist nation to be successful. Globalism opens up greater opportunities, but by no means is it required for any nation to succeed. Even complete islands of people can function without Marxist ideology. And FYI, Cuba isn't an American welfare state. They can (and do) trade with the rest of the world and South America just fine. If Communism falls, it falls on its own face. Please see N. Korea and their Juche philosophy.

    Damn, what they hell are they teaching you in school these days? FFS!! Please PLEASE educate yourself.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.