Why is the US Picking on CUBA???

[Sava]

I think its hypocritical to have an embargo with Cuba, yet allow multinational corporations to exploit cheap Chinese labor.

If the US's goal is to get rid of "communist" Cuba, then allowing trade and the fruits of capitalism to enrich the nation sounds like a good thing. But then again, when the US has a chance to embargo a nation and let the people suffer, it never hesitates (see Iraq). Oh but wait, the embargos are successful in getting rid of dictators right? pffft.

This is hardly a Bush administration issue though. They are just keeping the status quo. Nothing new.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava

This is hardly a Bush administration issue though. They are just keeping the status quo. Nothing new.

Well, actually the fact they have placed much more stringent rules in the ability of people to visit their family or give them money is new. Certainly not something new in terms of what the hardcore exiles with no family left in Cuba may have been pushing for, but new in terms of how much separation between families the government will enforce.

And I agree wht hipocracy between our treatment of Cuba vs China or Vietnam is absurd. The only big difference is that both China and Vietnam have begun eocnomic restrcuturings-but its hard for Cuba to do so if their largest natural market is closed to them and the uS makes doing business in Cuba difficult for third parties.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I thought you said "a good example?"

And if the Great White Fraternal Socialist Brothers in the USSR hadn't subsidized Cuban sugar and banana production until the USSR itself went by the boards, then Cuban "development" would be sucking wind even worse than it is now.

And if the Yankee imperialists hadn't embargoed Cuba and subjected it to terrorist attacks who knows?

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We'll stop picking on them when they return the property they nationalized.

I just got off an icq-chat with Fidel. He says he'll return the nationalized property when the US pay the american indians full compensation for all the treaties they have broken since 1776 or so.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Half truth? What "half truth"? That the rider would have made it by if it were not for a president veto threat? How is that a half truth to say the president backs the hard line? The issue being that as a rider, passing the whole budget was more important than just that one measure. And maybe it was inserted as a rider cause as a bill on it's own it would face the opposition of the president and House leadership. Nice attempt at spinning the simple reality that the President is pushing a hard line and it isn't due to congress.

Hows about this half truth, what both houses voted to include as an amendment to that bill was to STOP FUNDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW, it did not

Originally posted by GePap

ease up on travel and trade restrictions with Cuba

Putting a contraversial rider on to an important appropriations bill is as old as government. If congress wished to actually normalize relations with Cuba they have the power to do so over any veto by the President.

HELLO! I said any representative from sections with lots of Cubans, democrat or republican. Maybe if you read my posts better that would help form the start...

Back to your usual bull**** I see.

Originally posted by GePap

Congressional support for a tough embargo comes from only 2 sides- the extreme right jihadis in the Republican party, like Delay, and people who represent districts with large Cuban populations, be they republican or democrat.

to which I replied

Originally posted by SpencerH

IIRC I watched the senate committees debate about the current changes to the travel to Cuba, and I was surprised to see the number of Dems who supported it. If you have better hard evidence than my memory I'd be happy to look at it.

So I guess there's no evidence for your statement. Typical!

Face it- you tired to make it look as if Bush were not the one in the driver seat on this but that it was the Congress who was behind this. You were wrong. Congress, or at least more than 50% of congresspeople would prefer a lessening of restrictions. It is Bush with the support of a minority of Congressmen, many with important posts, who back the hard line and Bush who with his power of presidential orders keep trying to tighten the noose.

My original comment may have been badly worded and reduced Bush's responsibility in this matter. Your statements, however, are the usual inflammatory rubbish. Until there is a vote to ease the embargo and normalize relations with Cuba without resorting to parlimentary tricks it is impossible to know where congress actually stands on this question.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
My original comment may have been badly worded and reduced Bush's responsibility in this matter. Your statements, however, are the usual inflammatory rubbish. Until there is a vote to ease the embargo and normalize relations with Cuba without resorting to parlimentary tricks it is impossible to know where congress actually stands on this question.

fist of all.

Second, we know how congress feels. They want to lower the restrictions. But there is not enough support for full normalization, certainly not enough to override a known veto by Bush currently.

So if anyone is standing in the way of easing, if not fully ending restrictions, it's Bush right now. So if this policy continues and in fact the government is trying to go even further with it, we can certainly fully blame the amdin. Specially since these restrictions were not mandated by Congress but announced by the executive branch alone.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

I just got off an icq-chat with Fidel. He says he'll return the nationalized property when the US pay the american indians full compensation for all the treaties they have broken since 1776 or so.

Hey! We gave them the casinos...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

Second, we know how congress feels. They want to lower the restrictions.

Is that the royal 'we'?

Perhaps you're using your psychic powers again?

I will admit that I have not followed this issue closely, but you have provided no 'untainted' evidence that the majority of congress wishes to do as you say.

Personally, I think its nonsense to maintain the embargo. If we could bring down the Soviets without one I dont see why we cant do the same to the Cuban commies.

It seems to me that if the political will to do this was truly present in congress that they could force the issue. If Bush then vetoed a bipartisan bill with a clear message from the majority of congress, who would come out looking the worst?

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Is that the royal 'we'?

Perhaps you're using your psychic powers again?

I will admit that I have not followed this issue closely, but you have provided no 'untainted' evidence that the majority of congress wishes to do as you say.

No, I just look at the results of votes on emasures that might ease restrictions. There have been several, look them up if you care. For example, the measure to allow Cuban to buy food and medicines with cash.

It seems to me that if the political will to do this was truly present in congress that they could force the issue. If Bush then vetoed a bipartisan bill with a clear message from the majority of congress, who would come out looking the worst?

One, as I said the republican house leadership is not supportive of such a measure, even if more and more rank and file reps. are- such a bill would not get far currently (ie, full normalization).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Dissident
Bush again. This crazy mother****er might even invade Cuba.

*Phones White House*

PLATO: Dick! I know how you can lock up that Cuban vote in Miami!

DICK: Hmmm...I'll talk to George when Delay gets done walking him...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by VJ
I don't see a reason how Tiananmen was worse than Waco. We have no evidence how many people were killed in either case and both goverments are officially representing that it never happened.

this is a bullsh*t analogy

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We'll stop picking on them when they return the property they nationalized.

So then does this mean that we should return Texas and all of the southwest back to Mexico before we can "fairly" demand Mexico to handle the illegal immigration problem?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, because there was a treaty involved in that transaction .

[Verto]

Originally posted by MrFun


So then does this mean that we should return Texas and all of the southwest back to Mexico before we can "fairly" demand Mexico to handle the illegal immigration problem?

Only if they then return all the land to Spain.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, because there was a treaty involved in that transaction .

Some treaty -- it was forced on a dejected, utterly defeated Mexico that really had no choice.