Cuba Embargo, is it still necessary?

[Geilinor]

The people who held shares in the corporations have rights.

It was their choice to buy the shares.

So Cuba can decide to take them away at any time?

[Personal Freedom]

It was their choice to buy the shares.

So Cuba can decide to take them away at any time?

That is all part of the risk of the stock market.

[Eastern Equestria]

You don't know much about Cuban history do you?

Obviously not. Care to enlighten me?

Batista had no "predecessors" in the sense that Cuba had been a dictatorship before him. He had held on and off leadership roles in the oft unstable government, but before his coup d'état established a military junta in Cuba in 1952, it's leaders were democratically elected by Cubans.

[Threlizdun]

Obviously not. Care to enlighten me?

Batista had no "predecessors" in the sense that Cuba had been a dictatorship before him. He had held on and off leadership roles in the oft unstable government, but before his coup d'état established a military junta in Cuba in 1952, it's leaders were democratically elected by Cubans.

As democratic as an election solidly within another nation's sphere of influence could be, sure. True national sovereignty never existed in Cuba until the revolution.

[Eastern Equestria]

Batista had no "predecessors" in the sense that Cuba had been a dictatorship before him. He had held on and off leadership roles in the oft unstable government, but before his coup d'état established a military junta in Cuba in 1952, it's leaders were democratically elected by Cubans.

As democratic as an election solidly within another nation's sphere of influence could be, sure. True national sovereignty never existed in Cuba until the revolution.

That depends on your definition of "true national sovereignty". The Platt Amendment always made sure that the United States was at the forefront of Cuban politics, but this was made so because of how unstable Cuba's government was immediately following it's independence. Most of it's revolutionary leaders were dead, and the lack of a respectable candidate for national leadership led to violent power struggles that the United States felt it had resolve itself in order to preserve it's economic interests on the island.

"Just at the moment I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth. All that we wanted from them was that they would behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we would not have to interfere."
—Theodore Roosevelt

Despite this, Cuba was a prosperous and democratic republic prior to the revolutions of 1952 and 1959, with a very high standard living that was in no small part thanks to very close economic ties with the United States. If by "true national sovereignty" you simply mean a termination of political and economic dependency on the US, than yes, Cubans never had it until the revolution. But if you ask any Cuban old enough to remember life in Cuba before the revolutions, they'd choose the old way of life over your specious concept of true national sovereignty and the loss of economic determinism and civil liberty that came with it.

[Estado Paulista]

Despite this, Cuba was a prosperous and democratic republic prior to the revolutions of 1952 and 1959, with a very high standard living that was in no small part thanks to very close economic ties with the United States.

Precisely.

American companies owned most of the country. The US controlled or supplied almost half of the sugar plantations, the vast majority of the cattle ranches, mines, utilities, oil, and most of the imports. It is understandable that this would rankle a lot of proud Cubans, such as Castro. It created the impression that the US had more influence in Cuba than native Cubans, and in many ways the US did.

However, I don't think that relationship was particularly exploitative. Cuba enjoyed a very high standard of living. It was not a poor country; it was not a peasant country. It was a diversified economy whose per capita wealth at the time was greater than Japan or Spain. Living standards were the third highest in Latin America, and almost as high as Italy's. Not a bad peer group.

It was either first or second in all of Latin America in terms of automobiles, radios, and telephones per capita. It had the highest wage rate for industrial workers in Latin America and 9th highest in the world. It had the highest agricultural wages in Latin America. It had the lowest mortality rate in Latin America. It was very well positioned to join the ranks of developed countries in the next 20 years.

This is not the description of a particularly "exploited" country. There were of course problems. Sugar plantation work was seasonal, and the countryside remained poor. All of these problems though were not particularly bad compared to Cuba's peer group, and could have been remedied with a modest welfare state combined with policies to improve economic development — all of which the US would have gladly supported.

[Eastern Equestria]

Despite this, Cuba was a prosperous and democratic republic prior to the revolutions of 1952 and 1959, with a very high standard living that was in no small part thanks to very close economic ties with the United States.

Precisely.

American companies owned most of the country. The US controlled or supplied almost half of the sugar plantations, the vast majority of the cattle ranches, mines, utilities, oil, and most of the imports. It is understandable that this would rankle a lot of proud Cubans, such as Castro. It created the impression that the US had more influence in Cuba than native Cubans, and in many ways the US did.

However, I don't think that relationship was particularly exploitative. Cuba enjoyed a very high standard of living. It was not a poor country; it was not a peasant country. It was a diversified economy whose per capita wealth at the time was greater than Japan or Spain. Living standards were the third highest in Latin America, and almost as high as Italy's. Not a bad peer group.

It was either first or second in all of Latin America in terms of automobiles, radios, and telephones per capita. It had the highest wage rate for industrial workers in Latin America and 9th highest in the world. It had the highest agricultural wages in Latin America. It had the lowest mortality rate in Latin America. It was very well positioned to join the ranks of developed countries in the next 20 years.

This is not the description of a particularly "exploited" country. There were of course problems. Sugar plantation work was seasonal, and the countryside remained poor. All of these problems though were not particularly bad compared to Cuba's peer group, and could have been remedied with a modest welfare state combined with policies to improve economic development — all of which the US would have gladly supported.

I've stated the following facts in other threads regarding this subject but they need to be reiterated here. Before the communist revolution in Cuba:

-It ranked 5th in the Western Hemisphere in per capita income

-It ranked 3rd in the Western Hemisphere in life expectancy

-2nd in the Western Hemisphere in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones

-1st in the Western Hemisphere in the number of television sets per inhabitant

-11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita

-It's literacy rate, 76%, was 4th highest in Latin America

Cuba also boasted a multitude of private clinics and hospitals providing for the poor, an income distribution that compared very favorably to other Latin American nations, and a middle class comparable to America's. These facts render Castro-supporters' claims that without his "drastic" reforms Cuba would have ended up as impoverished as Haiti or the Dominican Republic, completely unfounded.

[MERIZoC]

It was their choice to buy the shares.

So Cuba can decide to take them away at any time?

Cuba isn't beholden to corporations. As I said in my post, but you neglected to put in your response, Cuba has no legal obligation to repay them.

[Pilotto]

So Cuba can decide to take them away at any time?

Cuba isn't beholden to corporations. As I said in my post, but you neglected to put in your response, Cuba has no legal obligation to repay them.

And we have no legal obligation to open trade with them.

[Gomlis44]

Remove the embargo. Its been awhile and we could use more trade sources.

[MERIZoC]

Cuba isn't beholden to corporations. As I said in my post, but you neglected to put in your response, Cuba has no legal obligation to repay them.

And we have no legal obligation to open trade with them.

The UN has issued several resolutions criticizing the embargo, and called for it to be lifted, with only the US and Israel voting against each time. I'd also argue that we have a moral obligation to the people of Cuba, who could be much better off if we traded with them.

[Chestaan]

Cuba isn't beholden to corporations. As I said in my post, but you neglected to put in your response, Cuba has no legal obligation to repay them.

And we have no legal obligation to open trade with them.

Well no, but you also have no legal obligation to trade with Saudi Arabia, China or any of the other dictatorships yet you still do. So let's all be completely clear about this, because I see this argument sometimes made, the reason the embargo exists is not because Cuba is undemocratic, it's because it's left wing.

[Pantokratos]

Obviously not. Care to enlighten me?

Batista had no "predecessors" in the sense that Cuba had been a dictatorship before him. He had held on and off leadership roles in the oft unstable government, but before his coup d'état established a military junta in Cuba in 1952, it's leaders were democratically elected by Cubans.

When the US liberated Cuba from Spanish rule it was indeed a democracy.

[Tyrrhenian Plutocracy]

Young Cuban-Americans are asking that the embargo on Cuba be removed. This embargo has been in effect since 1960 when Castro came to power.

What do you think? Should the embargo be removed? Or is it still necessary?

Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27403256

Yes, it is. Cuba has chosen the God forsaken system of Communism. This system sees a world of equality, whre everyone gets food , water and resources iregardless of who they are or what they do. This is wrong, because the world should be filled with individuals who slave for a scrap of food. The teaching about equality is wrong too, because you are literally your Master's slave and are so low he should wipe his shoes on you. Therefore, for teaching people that they are equal to others and for not allowing them to starve to death, this heresy should be punished by isolating them and should not receive ANY money from the God blessed America. It would be sort of like loaning Satan a $ 100.

[Greed and Death]

I am all for removing the embargo provided that refugees are compensated for the property seized by the Cuban government and american corporations are compensated for the property seized by the Cuban government.

Why should the corporations be compensated? They don't have rights.

Why it is true that that doing business overseas subjects you to the risk of your business being appropriated.
Overseas countries also run the risk of trade sanctions for seizing property of American corporations without compensation.

If the government of Cuba wants to trade with the US, the government of Cuba will pay back the property of Americans they have taken. Before you decry how unfair this is we used to send gun boats to collect this compensation from these pesky governments directly.

[Greed and Death]

I am all for removing the embargo provided that refugees are compensated for the property seized by the Cuban government and american corporations are compensated for the property seized by the Cuban government.

Sure, just as soon as we compensate all the families of Cubans murdered by Batista and his predecessors we helped install as well offering an official apology for the Bay of Pig Invasion as well.

Batista was an agent of the government of Cuba, it fell on Castro to compensated the victims of such atrocities.

[Tyrrhenian Plutocracy]

Precisely.

American companies owned most of the country. The US controlled or supplied almost half of the sugar plantations, the vast majority of the cattle ranches, mines, utilities, oil, and most of the imports. It is understandable that this would rankle a lot of proud Cubans, such as Castro. It created the impression that the US had more influence in Cuba than native Cubans, and in many ways the US did.

However, I don't think that relationship was particularly exploitative. Cuba enjoyed a very high standard of living. It was not a poor country; it was not a peasant country. It was a diversified economy whose per capita wealth at the time was greater than Japan or Spain. Living standards were the third highest in Latin America, and almost as high as Italy's. Not a bad peer group.

It was either first or second in all of Latin America in terms of automobiles, radios, and telephones per capita. It had the highest wage rate for industrial workers in Latin America and 9th highest in the world. It had the highest agricultural wages in Latin America. It had the lowest mortality rate in Latin America. It was very well positioned to join the ranks of developed countries in the next 20 years.

This is not the description of a particularly "exploited" country. There were of course problems. Sugar plantation work was seasonal, and the countryside remained poor. All of these problems though were not particularly bad compared to Cuba's peer group, and could have been remedied with a modest welfare state combined with policies to improve economic development — all of which the US would have gladly supported.

I've stated the following facts in other threads regarding this subject but they need to be reiterated here. Before the communist revolution in Cuba:

-It ranked 5th in the Western Hemisphere in per capita income

-It ranked 3rd in the Western Hemisphere in life expectancy

-2nd in the Western Hemisphere in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones

-1st in the Western Hemisphere in the number of television sets per inhabitant

-11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita

-It's literacy rate, 76%, was 4th highest in Latin America

Cuba also boasted a multitude of private clinics and hospitals providing for the poor, an income distribution that compared very favorably to other Latin American nations, and a middle class comparable to America's. These facts render Castro-supporters' claims that without his "drastic" reforms Cuba would have ended up as impoverished as Haiti or the Dominican Republic, completely unfounded.

I disagree. We were their Masters and they were our slaves. In a well ordered society, the slaves accept their fate in life and work hard for their Masters. What Castro did was lead a slave rebellion, and freed what was OUR slaves. Why should we feed our former slaves ? I think rather we should be praying that every Cuban dies of a horrible disease.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I disagree. We were their Masters and they were our slaves. In a well ordered society, the slaves accept their fate in life and work hard for their Masters. What Castro did was lead a slave rebellion, and freed what was OUR slaves. Why should we feed our former slaves ? I think rather we should be praying that every Cuban dies of a horrible disease.

*** Warned *** for the horrible trolling. Knock it off.

[Luziyca]

The embargo should be removed, since it has harmed the Cuban economy, and with the end of communism and the rise of tourism, Cuba could be a better place for tourists to visit than even Mexico.

[MERIZoC]

The embargo should be removed, since it has harmed the Cuban economy, and with the end of communism and the rise of tourism, Cuba could be a better place for tourists to visit than even Mexico.

What makes you say the pseudo-communist system there would end?

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Hate to say it, but Cuba did it to itself. It wouldn't be under an embargo if it didn't allow several nukes to be parked in its backyard, less than 90 miles from the American mainland. Also, if Castro hadn't has such extreme views at the time, maybe the embargo wouldn't have happened or at least would have been lifted a few decades ago. Now I know a few communist sympathizers are going to troll me just because of said beliefs, but like I said, if Cuba hadn't gone communist, it wouldn't be under an embargo now would it?

[MERIZoC]

Hate to say it, but Cuba did it to itself. It wouldn't be under an embargo if it didn't allow several nukes to be parked in its backyard, less than 90 miles from the American mainland. Also, if Castro hadn't has such extreme views at the time, maybe the embargo wouldn't have happened or at least would have been lifted a few decades ago. Now I know a few communist sympathizers are going to troll me just because of said beliefs, but like I said, if Cuba hadn't gone communist, it wouldn't be under an embargo now would it?

Well, at least we have someone here who actually admits that the embargo is because of Cuba's left wing policies! Anyway, that's a dumb-ass reason to place an embargo on a country. It's like prohibiting companies from selling things to someone who was a communist in the US.

[Luziyca]

The embargo should be removed, since it has harmed the Cuban economy, and with the end of communism and the rise of tourism, Cuba could be a better place for tourists to visit than even Mexico.

What makes you say the pseudo-communist system there would end?

It won't. That said, it is better to lift the embargo or at least reduce it a bit more so that Coca-Cola could come back at least.

Hate to say it, but Cuba did it to itself. It wouldn't be under an embargo if it didn't allow several nukes to be parked in its backyard, less than 90 miles from the American mainland. Also, if Castro hadn't has such extreme views at the time, maybe the embargo wouldn't have happened or at least would have been lifted a few decades ago. Now I know a few communist sympathizers are going to troll me just because of said beliefs, but like I said, if Cuba hadn't gone communist, it wouldn't be under an embargo now would it?

Well, at least we have someone here who actually admits that the embargo is because of Cuba's left wing policies! Anyway, that's a dumb-ass reason to place an embargo on a country. It's like prohibiting companies from selling things to someone who was a communist in the US.

I agree, Merizoc.

[Estado Paulista]

Well, at least we have someone here who actually admits that the embargo is because of Cuba's left wing policies! Anyway, that's a dumb-ass reason to place an embargo on a country.

Not really. If by "left-wing policies" you mean aligning with the Soviet Union and later hosting Soviet nuclear weapons and expropriating American companies, I'd say that having "left wing policies" are a very good reason to place an embargo on a country. Also, since the embargo began in 1960, I won't mention Cuba's funding for terrorist organizations in Latin America and Africa.

[MERIZoC]

Well, at least we have someone here who actually admits that the embargo is because of Cuba's left wing policies! Anyway, that's a dumb-ass reason to place an embargo on a country.

Not really. If by "left-wing policies" you mean aligning with the Soviet Union and later hosting Soviet nuclear weapons and expropriating American companies, I'd say that having "left wing policies" are a very good reason to place an embargo on a country. Also, since the embargo began in 1960, I won't mention Cuba's funding for terrorist organizations in Latin America and Africa.

1: Cuba isn't allies with the USSR anymore. (Who'da thunk it?)
2: Cuba can do whatever the fuck they want to american companies, they aren't the american government.
3: Terrorist is subjective, and there is evidence to suggest that several ME countries that the US trades with are involved in sponsorship of terrorists.