Breaking News Protests across Cuba against the Cuban Regime

[Punished UMN]

The US doesn't care who it trades with really. We have close trade relations with hardline Islamists and hardline Chinese communists (who actually pose a huge threat to us), and Vietnam, a country we actually fought a huge war against. Cuba also didn't choose to become an enemy of the US, the US began the embargo largely out of spite because its attempt to orchestrate a coup d'etat failed, and no attempt by the Cubans at rapprochement has been greeted with more than hostility. We have better relations with Russia and China, our two biggest geopolitical foes, it's a bit odd to act like the hostility is because they're an enemy when Cuba hasn't even fucking done anything.

Except not kow towing to the US.

Yeah, that's my point. The enmity in the relationship is largely one-sided. Cuba is our "enemy" because the US has decided it will simply not tolerate Cuba.

[Asherahan]

Except not kow towing to the US.

Yeah, that's my point. The enmity in the relationship is largely one-sided. Cuba is our "enemy" because the US has decided it will simply not tolerate Cuba.

Shame on you for daring to exist. *Shakes fist with Coup D'etat Intent*

[Fahran]

The US doesn't care who it trades with really. We have close trade relations with hardline Islamists and hardline Chinese communists (who actually pose a huge threat to us), and Vietnam, a country we actually fought a huge war against.

This is true to a significant degree. Of course, China and Vietnam pursued reforms with gusto and managed to find a niche that empowered them. Cuba never got that memo and, in fact, might not be well-suited to that approach. Though Mexico has managed to get off well in some regards since the 1990s.

Cuba also didn't choose to become an enemy of the US, the US began the embargo largely out of spite because its attempt to orchestrate a coup d'etat failed, and no attempt by the Cubans at rapprochement has been greeted with more than hostility. We have better relations with Russia and China, our two biggest geopolitical foes, it's a bit odd to act like the hostility is because they're an enemy when Cuba hasn't even fucking done anything.

Cuba cuddled up to the USSR in the middle of the Cold War, served a base for missiles, and sent tens of thousands of Cubans to spread the communist revolution globally. Mind you, I don't think Castro behaved irrationally with regard to his foreign policy, but it's not outrageous to describe Cuba as a political enemy.

The question of how rapprochement can and will proceed is rightly a hazy one. The US probably should care a lot more about stability in Cuba than it does, at least from a pragmatic and humanitarian standpoint. The issue is that the Party has a lot of incentives to stall the reforms opponents want to see if they don't have their necks against the guillotine, and that prolongs suffering as well. They can beat or shoot demonstrators longer. In the long-term, I think the regime might well collapse from internal problems if nobody moves at all. That's why I've been describing the ball as in the Party's court. Because the US doesn't actually have to make any serious offers as a matter of existential import, and a lot of Cubans in the US might not want to. And they and our small contingent of democratic socialists are the ones who care the most about Cuba.

[Fahran]

So what your saying is that the Cubans should adopt the Chinese Economic Model?

I think looking at Mexico might make more sense. I do think Cuba needs to pursue serious reforms to ensure the long-term viability of the political community.

[Fahran]

Except not kow towing to the US.

That might have been true during the Cold War, but the situation has changed a lot since the 1990s. Recent demands from the US have been a good deal more reasonable. "Please don't torture dissident journalists" and "stop sheltering American communists who engage in terrorism" aren't really extreme requests. Cuba has options at the moment. None of them are easy or super pleasant, but there are options.

[Punished UMN]

The US doesn't care who it trades with really. We have close trade relations with hardline Islamists and hardline Chinese communists (who actually pose a huge threat to us), and Vietnam, a country we actually fought a huge war against.

This is true to a significant degree. Of course, China and Vietnam pursued reforms with gusto and managed to find a niche that empowered them. Cuba never got that memo and, in fact, might not be well-suited to that approach. Though Mexico has managed to get off well in some regards since the 1990s.

Cuba also didn't choose to become an enemy of the US, the US began the embargo largely out of spite because its attempt to orchestrate a coup d'etat failed, and no attempt by the Cubans at rapprochement has been greeted with more than hostility. We have better relations with Russia and China, our two biggest geopolitical foes, it's a bit odd to act like the hostility is because they're an enemy when Cuba hasn't even fucking done anything.

Cuba cuddled up to the USSR in the middle of the Cold War, served a base for missiles, and sent tens of thousands of Cubans to spread the communist revolution globally. Mind you, I don't think Castro behaved irrationally with regard to his foreign policy, but it's not outrageous to describe Cuba as a political enemy.

The question of how rapprochement can and will proceed is rightly a hazy one. The US probably should care a lot more about stability in Cuba than it does, at least from a pragmatic and humanitarian standpoint. The issue is that the Party has a lot of incentives to stall the reforms opponents want to see if they don't have their necks against the guillotine, and that prolongs suffering as well. They can beat or shoot demonstrators longer. In the long-term, I think the regime might well collapse from internal problems if nobody moves at all. That's why I've been describing the ball as in the Party's court. Because the US doesn't actually have to make any serious offers as a matter of existential import, and a lot of Cubans in the US might not want to. And they and our small contingent of democratic socialists are the ones who care the most about Cuba.

1) It's hard to find a niche when you can't trade with the largest economy in the world that is also your closest neighbor.
2) Cuba cuddled up to the USSR after the US attempted to overthrow their government with an armed invasion.

[Punished UMN]

Except not kow towing to the US.

That might have been true during the Cold War, but the situation has changed a lot since the 1990s. Recent demands from the US have been a good deal more reasonable. "Please don't torture dissident journalists" and "stop sheltering American communists who engage in terrorism" aren't really extreme requests. Cuba has options at the moment. None of them are easy or super pleasant, but there are options.

Crazy how the US doesn't make those demands of Saudi Arabia, who butchered and carved up a dissident journalist who actually lived in the US.

[Asherahan]

Except not kow towing to the US.

That might have been true during the Cold War, but the situation has changed a lot since the 1990s. Recent demands from the US have been a good deal more reasonable. "Please don't torture dissident journalists" and "stop sheltering American communists who engage in terrorism" aren't really extreme requests. Cuba has options at the moment. None of them are easy or super pleasant, but there are options.

American Communists who engage in terrorism? Who? For real though?

Also please don't torture dissident journalists? Really? Says the goverment who let the Saudis kill and dismember a journalist?

[Fahran]

American Communists who engage in terrorism? Who? For real though?

Yes. Cuba has supported black nationalists, Puerto Rican nationalists, and assorted left-wing militants operating within the US. A number of these people have been given asylum in Cuba.

Also please don't torture dissident journalists? Really? Says the goverment who let the Saudis kill and dismember a journalist?

Not really pertinent. The demand is not an outrageous one. A touch hypocritical? Absolutely, but not outrageous or unreasonable.

[Asherahan]

American Communists who engage in terrorism? Who? For real though?

Yes. Cuba has supported black nationalists, Puerto Rican nationalists, and assorted left-wing militants operating within the US. A number of these people have been given asylum in Cuba.

Also please don't torture dissident journalists? Really? Says the goverment who let the Saudis kill and dismember a journalist?

Not really pertinent. The demand is not an outrageous one. A touch hypocritical? Absolutely, but not outrageous or unreasonable.

outrageous or unreasonable no.

But A touch hypocritical? A touch? Are you kidding?

[Fahran]

Crazy how the US doesn't make those demands of Saudi Arabia, who butchered and carved up a dissident journalist who actually lived in the US.

The US likely would have done more in the absence of the Trump administration and, at the time, Congress did want to impose sanctions on MbS and Saudi Arabia as a whole, specifically with regard to military aid.

[Punished UMN]

American Communists who engage in terrorism? Who? For real though?

Yes. Cuba has supported black nationalists, Puerto Rican nationalists, and assorted left-wing militants operating within the US. A number of these people have been given asylum in Cuba.

Also please don't torture dissident journalists? Really? Says the goverment who let the Saudis kill and dismember a journalist?

Not really pertinent. The demand is not an outrageous one. A touch hypocritical? Absolutely, but not outrageous or unreasonable.

If you refuse to even negotiate with one country because they torture dissidents, but give another country four and a half times the previous country's GDP in arms deals, it's hard to believe that you really care that much about it. It's not that it's a hypocritical or an unreasonable demand, it's that it's not a real demand. The demand exists as a pretext. If Cuba met the demand, we'd find another demand to make.

[Fahran]

outrageous or unreasonable no.

But A touch hypocritical? A touch? Are you kidding?

Rhetorical understatement is a fault of mine.

But you get my point there. I think most political actors behave hypocritically, much to their own detriment. The US is no exception.

[Fahran]

If you refuse to even negotiate with one country because they torture dissidents, but give another country four and a half times the previous country's GDP in arms deals, it's hard to believe that you really care that much about it. It's not that it's a hypocritical or an unreasonable demand, it's that it's not a real demand. The demand exists as a pretext. If Cuba met the demand, we'd find another demand to make.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Saudis have economic leverage to some extent and exist in a particular geopolitical set of circumstances. Cuba does not hold those same advantages. Again, I'm not going to assert that this is right or fair, but the fact remains that the US doesn't need to offer Cuba a stellar deal. Such deals are offered in many cases for pragmatic and cynical reasons. The demands on Cuba are moral, albeit largely shaped by geopolitical considerations and historical enmities. Cuba isn't owed the means to preserve the Party's rule. The US specifically doesn't want to prolong the Party's rule because Cuban-Americans don't want that. Hence why the onus to securing more favorable relations is presently resting on the regime.

[Punished UMN]

If you refuse to even negotiate with one country because they torture dissidents, but give another country four and a half times the previous country's GDP in arms deals, it's hard to believe that you really care that much about it. It's not that it's a hypocritical or an unreasonable demand, it's that it's not a real demand. The demand exists as a pretext. If Cuba met the demand, we'd find another demand to make.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Saudis have economic leverage to some extent and exist in a particular geopolitical set of circumstances. Cuba does not hold those same advantages. Again, I'm not going to assert that this is right or fair, but the fact remains that the US doesn't need to offer Cuba a stellar deal. Such deals are offered in many cases for pragmatic and cynical reasons. The demands on Cuba are moral, albeit largely shaped by geopolitical considerations and historical enmities. Cuba isn't owed the means to preserve the Party's rule. The US specifically doesn't want to prolong the Party's rule because Cuban-Americans don't want that. Hence why the onus to securing more favorable relations is presently resting on the regime.

You admit the demands aren't right or fair, and that they are for pragmatic and cynical reasons, and then say they are moral demands? That's just doublespeak. If it isn't right or far and is for pragmatic and cynical reasons, they by definition aren't moral.

[Gravlen]

Is this going anywhere at all at the moment? Or has it pretty much already died down from the collective consciousness?

The protests themselves seem to have died down due to the Cuban crackdown and mass arrests of protesters. Around 600 were arrested earlier this month.

[Odreria]

Is this going anywhere at all at the moment? Or has it pretty much already died down from the collective consciousness?

The protests themselves seem to have died down due to the Cuban crackdown and mass arrests of protesters. Around 600 were arrested earlier this month.

hahahaha owned

[Fahran]

You admit the demands aren't right or fair, and that they are for pragmatic and cynical reasons, and then say they are moral demands?

"Don't torture political dissidents" is both a fair and just demand on its own. There's no reason we should conclude that it's immoral. It's hypocritical because it's not a demand made of American allies on a consistent basis. The thing is someone can be both a hypocrite and correct at the same time. And states tend to do that a lot based on which issues are salient to the political community.

That's just doublespeak. If it isn't right or far and is for pragmatic and cynical reasons, they by definition aren't moral.

Again, you're confusing the intrinsic nature of the demand with the motivations of the power making the demand. In the case of the United States, the moral error isn't that this demand is made of Cuba but, rather, that it isn't consistently made of, to employ your example, Saudi Arabia. A good many people in political office do want the same demand to be made of Saudi Arabia. It's contributed to the temporary derailing of military aid to Saudi Arabia in the middle of a proxy war with Iran, who also tortures and murders people. So it's not like others haven't noticed this.

[Myrensis]

Except not kow towing to the US.

Yeah, that's my point. The enmity in the relationship is largely one-sided. Cuba is our "enemy" because the US has decided it will simply not tolerate Cuba.

Cuba committed the ultimate crime: It threatened our sense of invincibility, therefore total submission or destruction is the only acceptable outcome to soothe our wounded pride.

We see a similar effect with Iran.

We regularly do business with far worse countries, countries that are actually responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, but those proxy wars and other conflicts never threatened our bubble the way the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Iranian Hostage Crisis did, so they get a pass.

[Fahran]

We regularly do business with far worse countries, countries that are actually responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, but those proxy wars and other conflicts never threatened our bubble the way the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Iranian Hostage Crisis did, so they get a pass.

The Saudi state really isn't comparable to Iran or Cuba in terms of constituting an active belligerent and directly sponsoring terrorist movements that conflict with our interests. For one thing, Mohammed ibn Salman, the guy who had the dissident journalist chopped up in the Turkish embassy, is actually going to be the person who shifts Saudi Arabia towards modernization, secularization, and human rights in the long-term if he succeeds in his current ongoing reforms. He's not a good person in the slightest, but he's not a dye-in-the-wool Wahhabi either. The leaders in Iran actually do believe in the Islamic Revolution and actively want to spread it across the Middle East, even at the cost of destabilizing other countries. This has largely defined Iranian policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Levant, and Yemen. You're not going to make them friends unless you accept that geopolitical goal, namely Shia religious hegemony in the Middle East, as acceptable.

Cuba, historically, has had a similar problem, fueled in part by the fact that Castro portrayed himself as a liberator against American imperialism and a dedicated Marxist-Leninist from several months into his dictatorship onward. It's not just that Cuba wounded America's ego and sense of invincibility by pointing nuclear weapons at the heart of the behemoth, though they did do that. Cuba actively sent guerrillas to destabilize other countries and spread a revolution where the stated goal was the eventual destruction of capitalism in all its forms. Millions died as a result of these conflicts. And the ideological spillover has been ongoing to a significant degree. Again, that's not to say that Castro was behaving irrationally as a political actor. But the US was and is behaving rationally as well in that context. As most powers tend to do.

You don't tend to offer charity to enemies as a usual rule, especially not when you're housing a large group of exiles who were created by those enemies and hold an understandably strong dislike of those enemies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's pretty comedic to claim Cuba is a big bad we need to clamp down on when we're pals with Pakistan who are directly responsible for killing more Americans than Cuba could ever dream of via their proxies in Afghanistan.

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

It's pretty comedic to claim Cuba is a big bad we need to clamp down on when we're pals with Pakistan who are directly responsible for killing more Americans than Cuba could ever dream of via their proxies in Afghanistan.

To the Washington Resistance Army and all Persons: Then condemn them and condemn the US government and support western style democracy, with all its faults and merits, on your Posts in this thread for the People of Cuba and Pakistan, don't just imply it, state it?

[Deblar]

It's pretty comedic to claim Cuba is a big bad we need to clamp down on when we're pals with Pakistan who are directly responsible for killing more Americans than Cuba could ever dream of via their proxies in Afghanistan.

To the Washington Resistance Army and all Persons: Then condemn them and condemn the US government and support western style democracy, with all its faults and merits, on your Posts in this thread for the People of Cuba and Pakistan, don't just imply it, state it?

I mean, I’m not against a western democracy in Cuba, but at this point, there being one anytime soon is pretty unrealistic. Personally, if I were President, I’d try to work with Cuba to get some parts of the embargo lifted in exchange for them lifting some restrictions (America lifts tourism restrictions, Cuba protects tourists and Cuban citizens from wrongful incarceration, etc.) so that eventually Cuba is more liberalized (not quite western democracy but close enough), while at the same time lifting the crippling embargo. Whether or not this is realistic is of course debatable, but this is just what I’d do

[Atomic Testing Museum]

So first off I would like to say that I am not against the Cuban government. While I don't think it is cool that they are communist and most likely don't allow that much freedom I believe that since it is not the United States why should I care. Personally I think any country should be allowed to do whatever (except do genocide, mess the USA, invade Western Europe etc). But the United states and the rest of the OAS should try to make sure people in the western hemisphere are happy. I think they should sort of support the protesters ,but at the same time nudging the government to be nicer or something. They really shouldn't however be all gung-ho about it and be all screw the Cuba government viva la resistance! Especially considering that they (kind of) joined the EAEU (sort of the soviet union 2.0).

[Senkaku]

The Saudi state really isn't comparable to Iran or Cuba in terms of constituting an active belligerent and directly sponsoring terrorist movements that conflict with our interests.

The word “directly” is doing so much lifting in this sentence I fear it’s going to slip a disc