8 ms·

> There is an ongoing discussion about China weaponizing tourism And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. It's an effective tatic.

> There is an ongoing discussion about China weaponizing tourism And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. It's an effective tatic. China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before.

antidesitter 8y ago
> And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. Do you have more information about this?
- mcculley 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... The embargo is still in effect. I recently took a cruise to Havana. I was annoyed at the frequent reminders to those of us passengers who are US citizens about our restrictions on engaging in unallowed economic activity. Passengers who were not citizens of the Land of the Free have no such restrictions.
gaoshan 8y ago
I remember this basic "argument" from my childhood. After getting caught doing something of dubious moral value a child would say "Well everyone else is doing it". You knew it was wrong but you did it anyway and justified it by pointing out that "everyone else" did it. One of these days I'd love to see a grown up country come along and just do the good thing. Probably never happen since people are the same everywhere and really only like to point out shortcomings when they aren't the beneficiary but it would be so nice to find that there actually is an adult somewhere in the room.
- gerdesj 8y ago
  One of these days I'd love to see a grown up country come along and just do the good thing. I like your parent/child allusion and who wouldn't? However, there is no parent available that could cuff the miscreant and make it all good. Besides: what exactly is "the good thing"?
  - Waterluvian 8y ago
    Traditionally that parent has been the US. And like many parents they subscribe whole heartedly to, "do as I say, not as I do."
    - gerdesj 8y ago
      Traditionally that parent has been the US Your tradition seems to only go back a few decades.
      - Waterluvian 8y ago
        That's fair. Maybe like.. cold war onwards.
        gerdesj 8y ago
        I'm a Brit. In the past Britain might be said to have imposed itself a little bit across the planet. I'm not sure that the world is ready yet for either your or my country's style of nation scale parenthood. That said: we can persuade around 2 billion people to watch a Californian princess become a Duchess and convince those watchers and the rest of the world that the opposite happened! The US and its mythology can be pretty persuasive but I defy you to beat that 8)
        gerdesj 8y ago
        ... I was a bit unfair on assuming a few things. Meghan Markle became the Duchess of Sussex on marring Prince Harry. Strictly speaking she is not a Princess but I defy anyone to enforce that fact ...
        Waterluvian 8y ago
        The Royal family is so cool. Its like a look through a time machine. These are real Queens and princes and dukes and lords. They don't exactly do what they used to back in the day, but the look at the ceremony and the "authenticity" is really neat. I just wish the Queen of Canada visited more. She doesn't even live here.
altcognito 8y ago
The US claimed Cuba as a part of its territory?
- nickserv 8y ago
  Nobody is claiming Palau. The point is that China has effectively embargoed Palau, similar to the US embargo on Cuba following their revolution.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    It's not remotely 'similar'. One is from a minor diplomatic dispute. The other arose from a nuclear standoff that was the closest we ever came to starting World War 3 and therefore the destruction of all human life as we know it.
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    They have a limited agreement with the US. There's a video (I think it was on Vice) about how its a hot spot for Chinese tourists to pick up tech at US prices and gamble away from Chinese supervision.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  More or less, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War EDIT: Sorry about...history, I guess?
- erk__ 8y ago
  Well they did lease the Guantánamo Bay, but the current goverment says that the lease is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 8y ago
It's reasonable to note that it's a much smaller offense in this case than with Cuba, regardless of what one may think of the merits. There's a difference between holding a grudge over acts like expropriation and revolution and trying to enforce correct speaking and writing by everyone. The latter seems hypersensitive and quixotic. It would be silly if the US cut off travel to Canada because they recognized the existence of the new government of Cuba.
- Leary 8y ago
  Do you think in the Civil War, the US would've cut off travel to the UK if the UK recognized the Confederate States of America?
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    "In the Civil War" is one thing. 70 years later is another. There's no way to tell what would have happened if a hypothetical rump CSA territory still existed circa 1934. But we can look at Vietnam for comparison. The US normalized relations after 20 years, not >70.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  > It would be silly if the US cut off travel to Canada because they recognized the existence of the new government of Cuba. The US is quite happy right now to punish countries trading with Iran.
tomohawk 8y ago
Cuba's communist government nationalized property from people and corporations without any compensation. It still illegally holds these properties today. The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles pointed at the US. This almost caused a nuclear war. The US embargo was based on these and many other things. It is hardly a comparable situation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Leary 8y ago
  Do you think the damages that the US embargo have caused over the decades to the Cuban people is justified because of Cuba's communist policies?
  - tomohawk 8y ago
    I don't know. Do you think the damages the communist government have caused over the decades to the Cuban people are justified? The embargo didn't ultimately work, and neither did the government. I was just responding to the idea that an island that is no threat whatsoever to China, and which has never had nuclear missiles pointed at China, and which has not ever nationalized property from citizens of China was somehow equivalent to the Cuba situation.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  > Cuba's communist government nationalized property from people and corporations without any compensation. That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have. >The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles... I think you skipped a key part of history usually referred to as "Bay of Pigs Invasion"...
  - tomc1985 8y ago
    > That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have. Until you nationalize American-owned businesses, then yes it is.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
No. A) Cuba w/Soviets pointed nuclear missiles at the US. Iran's government perpetually declares they want to destroy the US. that's a tad offside compared to 'listing Taiwan as a country'. B) The US very very rarely controls where it's citizens can go. The moral/relative arguments used by the pro/defend China camp are tiring.
- phkahler 8y ago
  Have you noticed what's happening in the Puerto Rico? An actual US territory.
- Leary 8y ago
  Why does the US still embargo Cuba when it's no longer a military threat? Do you think that Cubans in Florida play an outsized role in US politics?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "Why does the US still embargo Cuba when it's no longer a military threat? Do you think that Cubans in Florida play an outsized role in US politics?" That's complicated but the Cuban regime is still to this day fairly totalitarian and are openly hostile to the US, which is not some little diplomatic thing.
- imbokodo 8y ago
  Cuba pointed missiles at the US because the US was openly gearing up for one of its many invasions of Cuba, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The Soviets put nukes there because the US put nuclear missiles into Turkey. The US government has declared they want to destroy the US. It has been the US interfering in Iran, not vice versa. The US banned Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling from leaving the US, only giving him one shortly before his second Nobel prize to avoid international embarrassment. Playwright and former Marilyn Monroe husband Arthur Miller was denied a passport, blocking him from seeing the Crucible open in London. Civil rights icon Paul Robeson was denied a passport, explicitly to deny him the opportunity to talk about the state of national oppression of those of African descent in the US. Also NY Post reporter William Withy Jr., Corliss Lamont, Howard Fast, Rockwell Kent... In more recent days one can not drive a car in the US without a license, travel a plane without one, take an Amtrak train without one or ride a Greyhound bus without one. The US absolutely exercises control over where its citizens can go, many of these restrictions are new.
Leary 8y ago
Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?
mistermann 8y ago
> China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before. If you drop sufficient detail from any comparison you can indeed come to such a conclusion, but it isn't an honest conclusion. In this case the detail that was dropped is the motive for engaging in the "same tactic", and in this case the motive is very different. In my opinion, this style (discarding non-trivial details until two different scenarios can be declared ~identical) of reporting, in both formal mainstream print & media journalism as well as the more casual but still extremely influential late night talk shows, is what has caused such a large percentage of the public to hold opinions that do not line up very well with reality, and you can observe this in online discussions when people get very emotionally upset with those who disagree with them - they "know" something to be a fact, because they likely did in fact hear something very similar to what they believe reported in a serious news outlet. But if you ask them to provide any citations that include this extra detail (say, during a discussion over an instance of the story that does include the dropped details), unsurprisingly they are utterly incapable of finding any evidence. And rare is the case where the person in question be able to realize their mistake, and change their beliefs. And if you fact check the media outlets on any of this, you'll almost always find that what they literally say is indeed factually true, it's just that they've dropped a whole bunch of context, resulting in their readers having a distorted understanding.

antidesitter 8y ago

> And America tried the same tatic with Cuba and many other countries. Do you have more information about this?

mcculley 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_... The embargo is still in effect. I recently took a cruise to Havana. I was annoyed at the frequent reminders to those of us passengers who are US citizens about our restrictions on engaging in unallowed economic activity. Passengers who were not citizens of the Land of the Free have no such restrictions.

gaoshan 8y ago

I remember this basic "argument" from my childhood. After getting caught doing something of dubious moral value a child would say "Well everyone else is doing it". You knew it was wrong but you did it anyway and justified it by pointing out that "everyone else" did it. One of these days I'd love to see a grown up country come along and just do the good thing. Probably never happen since people are the same everywhere and really only like to point out shortcomings when they aren't the beneficiary but it would be so nice to find that there actually is an adult somewhere in the room.

gerdesj 8y ago
One of these days I'd love to see a grown up country come along and just do the good thing. I like your parent/child allusion and who wouldn't? However, there is no parent available that could cuff the miscreant and make it all good. Besides: what exactly is "the good thing"?
- Waterluvian 8y ago
  Traditionally that parent has been the US. And like many parents they subscribe whole heartedly to, "do as I say, not as I do."
  - gerdesj 8y ago
    Traditionally that parent has been the US Your tradition seems to only go back a few decades.
    - Waterluvian 8y ago
      That's fair. Maybe like.. cold war onwards.
      - gerdesj 8y ago
        I'm a Brit. In the past Britain might be said to have imposed itself a little bit across the planet. I'm not sure that the world is ready yet for either your or my country's style of nation scale parenthood. That said: we can persuade around 2 billion people to watch a Californian princess become a Duchess and convince those watchers and the rest of the world that the opposite happened! The US and its mythology can be pretty persuasive but I defy you to beat that 8)
        gerdesj 8y ago
        ... I was a bit unfair on assuming a few things. Meghan Markle became the Duchess of Sussex on marring Prince Harry. Strictly speaking she is not a Princess but I defy anyone to enforce that fact ...
        Waterluvian 8y ago
        The Royal family is so cool. Its like a look through a time machine. These are real Queens and princes and dukes and lords. They don't exactly do what they used to back in the day, but the look at the ceremony and the "authenticity" is really neat. I just wish the Queen of Canada visited more. She doesn't even live here.

altcognito 8y ago

The US claimed Cuba as a part of its territory?

nickserv 8y ago
Nobody is claiming Palau. The point is that China has effectively embargoed Palau, similar to the US embargo on Cuba following their revolution.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  It's not remotely 'similar'. One is from a minor diplomatic dispute. The other arose from a nuclear standoff that was the closest we ever came to starting World War 3 and therefore the destruction of all human life as we know it.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  They have a limited agreement with the US. There's a video (I think it was on Vice) about how its a hot spot for Chinese tourists to pick up tech at US prices and gamble away from Chinese supervision.
knuththetruth 8y ago
More or less, actually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War EDIT: Sorry about...history, I guess?
erk__ 8y ago
Well they did lease the Guantánamo Bay, but the current goverment says that the lease is illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

perl4ever 8y ago

It's reasonable to note that it's a much smaller offense in this case than with Cuba, regardless of what one may think of the merits. There's a difference between holding a grudge over acts like expropriation and revolution and trying to enforce correct speaking and writing by everyone. The latter seems hypersensitive and quixotic. It would be silly if the US cut off travel to Canada because they recognized the existence of the new government of Cuba.

Leary 8y ago
Do you think in the Civil War, the US would've cut off travel to the UK if the UK recognized the Confederate States of America?
- perl4ever 8y ago
  "In the Civil War" is one thing. 70 years later is another. There's no way to tell what would have happened if a hypothetical rump CSA territory still existed circa 1934. But we can look at Vietnam for comparison. The US normalized relations after 20 years, not >70.
amaccuish 8y ago
> It would be silly if the US cut off travel to Canada because they recognized the existence of the new government of Cuba. The US is quite happy right now to punish countries trading with Iran.

tomohawk 8y ago

Cuba's communist government nationalized property from people and corporations without any compensation. It still illegally holds these properties today. The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles pointed at the US. This almost caused a nuclear war. The US embargo was based on these and many other things. It is hardly a comparable situation.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Leary 8y ago
Do you think the damages that the US embargo have caused over the decades to the Cuban people is justified because of Cuba's communist policies?
- tomohawk 8y ago
  I don't know. Do you think the damages the communist government have caused over the decades to the Cuban people are justified? The embargo didn't ultimately work, and neither did the government. I was just responding to the idea that an island that is no threat whatsoever to China, and which has never had nuclear missiles pointed at China, and which has not ever nationalized property from citizens of China was somehow equivalent to the Cuba situation.
amaccuish 8y ago
> Cuba's communist government nationalized property from people and corporations without any compensation. That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have. >The communist Cuban government acceded to hosting Soviet nuclear missiles... I think you skipped a key part of history usually referred to as "Bay of Pigs Invasion"...
- tomc1985 8y ago
  > That's not anyone else's business. Countries should be free to a certain extent to act as they wish. It's not for America to decide what political system another country should have. Until you nationalize American-owned businesses, then yes it is.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

No. A) Cuba w/Soviets pointed nuclear missiles at the US. Iran's government perpetually declares they want to destroy the US. that's a tad offside compared to 'listing Taiwan as a country'. B) The US very very rarely controls where it's citizens can go. The moral/relative arguments used by the pro/defend China camp are tiring.

phkahler 8y ago
Have you noticed what's happening in the Puerto Rico? An actual US territory.
Leary 8y ago
Why does the US still embargo Cuba when it's no longer a military threat? Do you think that Cubans in Florida play an outsized role in US politics?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Why does the US still embargo Cuba when it's no longer a military threat? Do you think that Cubans in Florida play an outsized role in US politics?" That's complicated but the Cuban regime is still to this day fairly totalitarian and are openly hostile to the US, which is not some little diplomatic thing.
imbokodo 8y ago
Cuba pointed missiles at the US because the US was openly gearing up for one of its many invasions of Cuba, shortly after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The Soviets put nukes there because the US put nuclear missiles into Turkey. The US government has declared they want to destroy the US. It has been the US interfering in Iran, not vice versa. The US banned Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling from leaving the US, only giving him one shortly before his second Nobel prize to avoid international embarrassment. Playwright and former Marilyn Monroe husband Arthur Miller was denied a passport, blocking him from seeing the Crucible open in London. Civil rights icon Paul Robeson was denied a passport, explicitly to deny him the opportunity to talk about the state of national oppression of those of African descent in the US. Also NY Post reporter William Withy Jr., Corliss Lamont, Howard Fast, Rockwell Kent... In more recent days one can not drive a car in the US without a license, travel a plane without one, take an Amtrak train without one or ride a Greyhound bus without one. The US absolutely exercises control over where its citizens can go, many of these restrictions are new.

Leary 8y ago

Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?

mistermann 8y ago

> China isn't doing anything new that hasn't been done before. If you drop sufficient detail from any comparison you can indeed come to such a conclusion, but it isn't an honest conclusion. In this case the detail that was dropped is the motive for engaging in the "same tactic", and in this case the motive is very different. In my opinion, this style (discarding non-trivial details until two different scenarios can be declared ~identical) of reporting, in both formal mainstream print & media journalism as well as the more casual but still extremely influential late night talk shows, is what has caused such a large percentage of the public to hold opinions that do not line up very well with reality, and you can observe this in online discussions when people get very emotionally upset with those who disagree with them - they "know" something to be a fact, because they likely did in fact hear something very similar to what they believe reported in a serious news outlet. But if you ask them to provide any citations that include this extra detail (say, during a discussion over an instance of the story that does include the dropped details), unsurprisingly they are utterly incapable of finding any evidence. And rare is the case where the person in question be able to realize their mistake, and change their beliefs. And if you fact check the media outlets on any of this, you'll almost always find that what they literally say is indeed factually true, it's just that they've dropped a whole bunch of context, resulting in their readers having a distorted understanding.