Cuba Embargo, is it still necessary?

[Estado Paulista]

1: Cuba isn't allies with the USSR anymore. (Who'da thunk it?)

Wow, thanks for telling me!

2: Cuba can do whatever the fuck they want to american companies, they aren't the american government.

I agree. And they choosed to do whatever they wanted to American companies, and consequently, the US choosed not to trade with them anymore, because just like Cuba can do whatever it wants with foreign companies present in the island, the US can trade (or not trade, for that matter) with whoever they want.

I know people like you have an irrational hatred for companies, but when you're basically stealing from the US, it's reasonable for the US to do something back. These companies are generally owned and operated by American citizens, and by expropriating them, you're targeting [and to some extent, hurting] the US government.

3: Terrorist is subjective.

No, it isn't.

and there is evidence to suggest that several ME countries that the US trades with are involved in sponsorship of terrorists.

Pretty cool, but let me guess: you belive the US should stop trading with them? This might seem like a good idea in your idealistic and immature way of seeing the world, but in reality, it really isn't. The US just can't stop trading with these countries, because among other things, they are needed for its economy to work. Cuba, not really.

[MERIZoC]

1: Cuba isn't allies with the USSR anymore. (Who'da thunk it?)

Wow, thanks for telling me!

2: Cuba can do whatever the fuck they want to american companies, they aren't the american government.

I agree. And they choosed to do whatever they wanted to American companies, and consequently, the US choosed not to trade with them anymore, because just like Cuba can do whatever it wants with foreign companies present in the island, the US can trade (or not trade, for that matter) with whoever they want.

I know people like you have an irrational hatred for companies, but when you're basically stealing from the US, it's reasonable for the US to do something back. These companies are generally owned and operated by American citizens, and by expropriating them, you're targeting [and to some extent, hurting] the US government.

3: Terrorist is subjective.

No, it isn't.

and there is evidence to suggest that several ME countries that the US trades with are involved in sponsorship of terrorists.

Pretty cool, but let me guess: you belive the US should stop trading with them? This might seem like a good idea in your idealistic and immature way of seeing the world, but in reality, it really isn't. The US just can't stop trading with these countries, because among other things, they are needed for its economy to work. Cuba, not really.

You're applying a ridiculous double standard. Besides, why should the Cuban people be made to suffer for Castro's actions?

[Geilinor]

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.

2: Cuba can do whatever the fuck they want to american companies, they aren't the american government.

So could Cuba do whatever it wanted to American citizens?

[Lydenburg]

I lost interest in Cuba when I discovered that Cubans weren't shaped like cubes.

I always assumed they were named after the sugar cubes in one's tea, being their primary export and all.

[Estado Paulista]

You're applying a ridiculous double standard.

You're being overly idealist and naive about how the world works. Double standards are present everywhere, because two different situations are never exactly the same, and you should get over them.

Besides, why should the Cuban people be made to suffer for Castro's actions?

I'll take this as a way of saying that Cuba would be much better off without Castro, which I concur.

[Kuzestan]

The embargo was put to sanction the cuban government at that time, which was showing hostility and danger to the US. But today, with all that attitude gone, the embargo just isn't relevant anymore

[Calimera II]

You're applying a ridiculous double standard.

You're being overly idealist and naive about how the world works. Double standards are present everywhere, because two different situations are never exactly the same, and you should get over them.

Besides, why should the Cuban people be made to suffer for Castro's actions?

I'll take this as a way of saying that Cuba would be much better off without Castro, which I concur.

Indeed. Lifting the embargo would be an indirect way of sponsering the dictatorship.
When the horrible regime falls, the US should lift embargos.

[Kuzestan]

You're applying a ridiculous double standard.

You're being overly idealist and naive about how the world works. Double standards are present everywhere, because two different situations are never exactly the same, and you should get over them.

Doing this will only contradict your current ideals at that time, which will make people harder to trust you, especially if you're a world superpower who wants to keep its influence here and there

[Calimera II]

The embargo was put to sanction the cuban government at that time, which was showing hostility and danger to the US. But today, with all that attitude gone, the embargo just isn't relevant anymore

Cuba still is very hostile towards capitalism and the US.

[Kelinfort]

Embargo is unnecessary. Exactly what are we going against? Their anti-democratic sentiment? Well, give them concessions for political reform and press freedom.

[Chestaan]

1: Cuba isn't allies with the USSR anymore. (Who'da thunk it?)

Wow, thanks for telling me!

2: Cuba can do whatever the fuck they want to american companies, they aren't the american government.

I agree. And they choosed to do whatever they wanted to American companies, and consequently, the US choosed not to trade with them anymore, because just like Cuba can do whatever it wants with foreign companies present in the island, the US can trade (or not trade, for that matter) with whoever they want.

I know people like you have an irrational hatred for companies, but when you're basically stealing from the US, it's reasonable for the US to do something back. These companies are generally owned and operated by American citizens, and by expropriating them, you're targeting [and to some extent, hurting] the US government.

3: Terrorist is subjective.

No, it isn't.

and there is evidence to suggest that several ME countries that the US trades with are involved in sponsorship of terrorists.

Pretty cool, but let me guess: you belive the US should stop trading with them? This might seem like a good idea in your idealistic and immature way of seeing the world, but in reality, it really isn't. The US just can't stop trading with these countries, because among other things, they are needed for its economy to work. Cuba, not really.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you favoured free trade?

2: Cuba can do whatever the fuck they want to american companies, they aren't the american government.

So could Cuba do whatever it wanted to American citizens?

Nationalisation is not the same as imprisoning/murdering people. Unless you think it is your question is stupid.

[Estado Paulista]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you favoured free trade?

Not always.

Nationalisation is not the same as imprisoning/murdering people. Unless you think it is your question is stupid.

Without due reinbursements, it's pretty much the same as robbing people.

[MERIZoC]

You're being overly idealist and naive about how the world works. Double standards are present everywhere, because two different situations are never exactly the same, and you should get over them.



I'll take this as a way of saying that Cuba would be much better off without Castro, which I concur.

Indeed. Lifting the embargo would be an indirect way of sponsering the dictatorship.

I disagree. Keeping the embargo in place rightfully gives a lot of legitimacy to those arguing that the US is hypocritical. It's another thing for them to attack. It's possible the Castro's want the embargo in place, so that they have something to criticize the US for.

The embargo was put to sanction the cuban government at that time, which was showing hostility and danger to the US. But today, with all that attitude gone, the embargo just isn't relevant anymore

Cuba still is very hostile towards capitalism and the US.

So….? We don't punish people for their beliefs.

[Calimera II]

Cuba still is very hostile towards capitalism and the US.

So….? We don't punish people for their beliefs.

So...? We don't support corrupt, lying and murdering dictatorships either.

[MERIZoC]

So….? We don't punish people for their beliefs.

So...? We don't support corrupt, lying and murdering dictatorships either.

Saudi Arabia and China to name a couple.

[Calimera II]

So...? We don't support corrupt, lying and murdering dictatorships either.

Saudi Arabia and China to name a couple.

So because there aren't embargos on Iran and China, there shouldn't be an embargo on Cuba?

[MERIZoC]

Saudi Arabia and China to name a couple.

So because there aren't embargos on Iran and China, there shouldn't be an embargo on Cuba?

You sure are bad at spelling. And no, there shouldn't be.

[Calimera II]

So because there aren't embargos on Iran and China, there shouldn't be an embargo on Cuba?

You sure are bad at spelling. And no, there shouldn't be.

Stop whining. You make no sense.

[MERIZoC]

You sure are bad at spelling. And no, there shouldn't be.

Stop whining. You make no sense.

What do you mean I make no sense? "Saudi Arabia" isn't spelled I-R-A-N.

[Riuchen]

So because there aren't embargos on Iran and China, there shouldn't be an embargo on Cuba?

You sure are bad at spelling. And no, there shouldn't be.

Attack the argument, not the person or I will report you to the mods.

And it seems you don't want an embargo on any dictatorship, which means the dictatorships can easily continue in power for decades.

[MERIZoC]

You sure are bad at spelling. And no, there shouldn't be.

Attack the argument, not the person or I will report you to the mods.

And it seems you don't want an embargo on any dictatorship, which means the dictatorships can easily continue in power for decades.

Embargo on Cuba sure hasn't hurt the Castro's. If we allow tourists to go there, and trade between us, it will benefit the Cuban people.

[Calimera II]

Attack the argument, not the person or I will report you to the mods.

And it seems you don't want an embargo on any dictatorship, which means the dictatorships can easily continue in power for decades.

Embargo on Cuba sure hasn't hurt the Castro's. If we allow tourists to go there, and trade between us, it will benefit the Cuban people.

It will benefit the government. The people's wealth is distributed (and mostly consumed) by the corrupt government members and party officials.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

You sure are bad at spelling. And no, there shouldn't be.

Attack the argument, not the person or I will report you to the mods.

And it seems you don't want an embargo on any dictatorship, which means the dictatorships can easily continue in power for decades.

Just so you know, using mods as weapons is also warnable.

No worries, I won't report it. Just thought that you should know.

[MERIZoC]

Embargo on Cuba sure hasn't hurt the Castro's. If we allow tourists to go there, and trade between us, it will benefit the Cuban people.

It will benefit the government. The people's wealth is distributed (and mostly consumed) by the corrupt government members and party officials.

Unlike in places like NK, the government does distribute money to the citizens. Maybe not as much as the should be, but some. What's more, the welfare system in Cuba is good enough that nobody is starving there. If more money from the US comes in, then the more the people will benefit.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It is interesting that the only remnant of the old Communist Bloc is the one nation that we continued to maintain trade sanctions against.

It's almost like trading with the other nations and exposing them to Western goods and services made them hungry for more, causing the system to become unstable and discredited from within.

But that can't be the case, otherwise that would make the embargo a self-defeating policy that should never have been imposed in the first place, and it would be unpatriotic and un-American to suggest such a thing.