Why is the US Picking on CUBA???

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Verto


Only if they then return all the land to Spain.

So you see how ridiculous Shi's comment was since that is not how the real world works.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

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.

So I did, and I agree that there is a trend in the house votes against the most harsh anti-cuba measures (2002-2004) . Note though, that the Rangel amendment of 2002 that sought to prohibit the use of any funding to implement, administer, or enforce the economic embargo of Cuba was rejected by a recorded vote of 204 ayes to 226 noes.

Quick analyses of the voting patterns across the USA on these matters suggests to me that your statement

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.

is incorrect. Voting for and against these bills follows mostly party lines (ie Dem for easing, Repubs against easing). Votes against the party line occur across the entire USA quite frequently. It is true that in Florida, more Dems, as a percentage, tend to vote against easing pressure than in other states.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Quick analyses of the voting patterns across the USA on these matters suggests to me that your statement is incorrect. Voting for and against these bills follows mostly party lines (ie Dem for easing, Repubs against easing). Votes against the party line occur across the entire USA quite frequently. It is true that in Florida, more Dems, as a percentage, tend to vote against easing pressure than in other states.

If you note, my statement mentions a "tough embargo" I have said several times there is not enough support to END the embargo, which is what rangel pushed for through defunding. Do please pay attention to my arguement- its a nice thing to do to keep the discussion coherent.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

If you note, my statement mentions a "tough embargo" I have said several times there is not enough support to END the embargo, which is what rangel pushed for through defunding. Do please pay attention to my arguement- its a nice thing to do to keep the discussion coherent.

Ending the funding for the embargo no more ends the embargo than ending the funding for the enforcement of travel restrictions ends the illegality of travel to Cuba. Do try to keep up! Perhaps you should lay off the lunchtime martinis!

[Solomwi]

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?

Poor analogy, MrFun, since most of the land in Cuba was taken from private citizens and businesses, not simply "redistricted" into Cuba. Besides, we annexed Texas when it was an independent nation, not part of Mexico.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Solomwi


Poor analogy, MrFun, since most of the land in Cuba was taken from private citizens and businesses, not simply "redistricted" into Cuba. Besides, we annexed Texas when it was an independent nation, not part of Mexico.

First of all, other parts of the southwest was still part of Mexico.

Secondly, if Cuban leaders believed that foreign-origniating companies were sucking the lifeblood from their own country's well-being, then I can understand why they took those companies down.

[Solomwi]

I didn't mean to imply that other parts of the southwest weren't ceded by Mexico, just that Texas wasn't.

I don't think it was a lifeblood-sucking issue that led to the wholesale seizure of private property in Cuba. I think it was more the fact that the new government was communist. A lot of it was taken from Cuban nationals, as well, not just the easily-demonized foreign companies.

[MrFun]

. . . . . and communists would view capitalist corporations as leeches in this regard. But yes, there were native corporations that suffered too.

[Solomwi]

Not just corporations. We had some Cuban exile families in the town where I grew up whose parents/grandparents (awkwardly worded, but I think you know what I mean) had simply owned "too much" land and had it seized.

My view on the corporate assets seized is that while the assets would be returned in a perfect world, it's a pipe dream, and owning in Cuba was a risk of doing business of which they were well aware. The return of land to the exiles is what I'd really like to see. Of course, that's only slightly less of a pipe dream after Castro's death, but should be at least partially possible.

[Ramo]

We'll stop picking on them when they return the property they nationalized.

The US property nationalized by Castro was stolen from the Cuban people through the corruption and tyranny of the Bautista regime.

[Berzerker]

Because the Cuban ex-patriots in Florida can give the state to either candidate so both parties want their support and get it by being tough on Cuba.

[Berzerker]

The US property nationalized by Castro was stolen from the Cuban people through the corruption and tyranny of the Bautista regime.

And the war with Spain, but the Spanish stole it too

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Not just corporations. We had some Cuban exile families in the town where I grew up whose parents/grandparents (awkwardly worded, but I think you know what I mean) had simply owned "too much" land and had it seized.

My view on the corporate assets seized is that while the assets would be returned in a perfect world, it's a pipe dream, and owning in Cuba was a risk of doing business of which they were well aware. The return of land to the exiles is what I'd really like to see. Of course, that's only slightly less of a pipe dream after Castro's death, but should be at least partially possible.

As Ramo pointed out, the corruption and exploitation with these corporations justified in the Cubans' eyes in seizing them.

[Solomwi]

That's quite a broad brush to paint with, and while certainly true in some cases, doesn't quite cover the breadth of the seizures.

[OzzyKP]

I'm too lazy to read much of anything in this thread, but...

There is only one reason we still pick on Cuba, because all the ex-Cubans really, really hate Castro. And more importantly, because they all live in the hottest battleground state, namely Florida.

Cynical, but oh so true.