6 ms·

>> "Many of small actions by a small number of focused people in Washington, in the Whitehouse, and entrepreneurs and bankers, may have a profound impact on mil

>> "Many of small actions by a small number of focused people in Washington, in the Whitehouse, and entrepreneurs and bankers, may have a profound impact on millions of Cuban lives in a very short period of time." While this is true don't forget that this also applies to the last several decades in Cuba too. They're fixing something that they created in the first place.

maxerickson 11y ago
Isn't one of the obvious factors that different people are making these decisions? There's an awful lot of people in Washington that are unhappy with the softer approach to Cuba.
davidw 11y ago
The Cuba Embargo was started in 1960. Barack Obama was born in 1961. So there are some different sets of 'they' around.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  I didn't think it was necessary to be more specific in my post but I was wrong. By 'they' I meant the US government.
  - BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
    After how much time can an organization's past actions cease to be attributable to its current members? Why not also just blame the current human race for everything bad done by humans >100 years ago?
marcoperaza 11y ago
Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why would Cuba have been any different but for the embargo?
- apalmer 11y ago
  Communism failed everywhere... BUT most of those countries have started down the path to a more market driven economy primarily through external trade... its weird to have trade with USSR and China but not allow trade with Cuba at this time.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The embargo was never about communism itself, it was a response to the seizure of assets owned by Americans without compensation. I think these other countries either didn't do this, or at least didn't do it as much.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    You're drawing a false dichotomy. Capitalism is good for a country regardless of trade arrangements. It's even better when you have trading partners, but you don't need them to reap massive benefits from a free market system. Capitalism is really bad if you're trying to hold onto your dictatorship. Cuba "opened up" economically before, in the 90s. They were under a lot of internal pressure after the collapse of their sponsor, the USSR. As soon as the economy recovered enough to secure the stability of Castro's ruling mafia (party officials, military, etc.), he reversed the market reforms and ratcheted up repression.
- davidw 11y ago
  > Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Lifting the embargo will make that even more obvious to those who still don't get it.
- the_af 11y ago
  Cuba is a bit more complex than that. - It's true Cuba is a disaster in some aspects, regardless of the embargo. You have a point there. - On the other hand, it's hard to argue some disasters were made even worse by the embargo. - Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This too is part of the lesson.
reis4g 11y ago
Totally.

maxerickson 11y ago

Isn't one of the obvious factors that different people are making these decisions? There's an awful lot of people in Washington that are unhappy with the softer approach to Cuba.

davidw 11y ago

The Cuba Embargo was started in 1960. Barack Obama was born in 1961. So there are some different sets of 'they' around.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
I didn't think it was necessary to be more specific in my post but I was wrong. By 'they' I meant the US government.
- BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
  After how much time can an organization's past actions cease to be attributable to its current members? Why not also just blame the current human race for everything bad done by humans >100 years ago?

marcoperaza 11y ago

Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why would Cuba have been any different but for the embargo?

apalmer 11y ago
Communism failed everywhere... BUT most of those countries have started down the path to a more market driven economy primarily through external trade... its weird to have trade with USSR and China but not allow trade with Cuba at this time.
- mikeash 11y ago
  The embargo was never about communism itself, it was a response to the seizure of assets owned by Americans without compensation. I think these other countries either didn't do this, or at least didn't do it as much.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  You're drawing a false dichotomy. Capitalism is good for a country regardless of trade arrangements. It's even better when you have trading partners, but you don't need them to reap massive benefits from a free market system. Capitalism is really bad if you're trying to hold onto your dictatorship. Cuba "opened up" economically before, in the 90s. They were under a lot of internal pressure after the collapse of their sponsor, the USSR. As soon as the economy recovered enough to secure the stability of Castro's ruling mafia (party officials, military, etc.), he reversed the market reforms and ratcheted up repression.
davidw 11y ago
> Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Lifting the embargo will make that even more obvious to those who still don't get it.
the_af 11y ago
Cuba is a bit more complex than that. - It's true Cuba is a disaster in some aspects, regardless of the embargo. You have a point there. - On the other hand, it's hard to argue some disasters were made even worse by the embargo. - Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education. Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This too is part of the lesson.

reis4g 11y ago

Totally.