3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Cuban thaw under Obama was largely reversed by Trump, and Biden has not done much of anything to relax the embargo a

I'm not sure I understand your comment. The Cuban thaw under Obama was largely reversed by Trump, and Biden has not done much of anything to relax the embargo again since his term began (but correct me if that's wrong). Any press release is a form of PR, and the CIA is no different. Government officials release press statements all the time in order to sway public opinion on a specific issue. In recent history, the buildup to the Iraq War is a perfect example, in the way that demonstrably false statements to the media and deliberate misdirection were used to gin up public support for the war. There are several great documentaries, books, and podcasts that go over it in great detail. I highly recommend looking into that period of time as an example of what I mean by "sway."

jonnybgood 5y ago
> Accompanying that has been numerous press releases, op-eds, and articles over the years attempting to sway public opinion towards U.S. intervention in Cuba. My point is that your statement above is made incorrect by actual policy. > was largely reversed by Trump Again you are incorrect. Trump actually made very little changes.
- salt-thrower 5y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-policy/530514/ https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-... It still represents a reversal towards a more aggressive stance. Also, this is worth pointing out: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. Even during the pandemic, Cuba was not allowed to receive vaccine supplies from the international community, and had to develop their own. What is that if not an act of aggression?
  - jonnybgood 5y ago
    The embargo can only be lifted by Congress. What Trump says and does are two different things. Follow the policy. He never actually reversed it. > EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. There cannot be a campaign to sway public opinion for US intervention when there has been a policy in effect for the warming of relations for the last 7 years. It's a contradiction in policy.
    - salt-thrower 5y ago
      > There cannot be a campaign to sway public opinion for US intervention when there has been a policy in effect for the warming of relations for the last 7 years. It's a contradiction in policy. That is simply not true. I don't know how you can see the current situation as "warming" just because a few select economic interests have access to the island now - the vast, vast majority of trade and economic activity is still blocked by the United States. I'll repeat again that pandemic aid of all things isn't even allowed in. Also, it is absolutely the case that different areas of the U.S. government can have seemingly different attitudes and policies towards certain issues. The government is not a monolith, and the intelligence apparatus especially is almost completely unaccountable to any outside interests, including Congress and the judiciary. Your assumption that that "oh well Obama let cruise ships go there again, so the CIA must have completely given up their decades-long goal of overthrowing the Cuban government" is way off. EDIT: and before you say something like "the CIA is beholden to the executive branch, so they must be in sync" I'll just repeat again that your view of the policy as "warming" is a big stretch. TL;DR: Obama's slight relaxation of the embargo doesn't mean that the intelligence services don't still want to destabilize the Cuban government and pursue U.S. intervention, and if that is the case, press releases to gin up anti-Cuban sentiment would be part of that playbook. Those are absolutely still compatible. I rest my case.

jonnybgood 5y ago

> Accompanying that has been numerous press releases, op-eds, and articles over the years attempting to sway public opinion towards U.S. intervention in Cuba. My point is that your statement above is made incorrect by actual policy. > was largely reversed by Trump Again you are incorrect. Trump actually made very little changes.

salt-thrower 5y ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-policy/530514/ https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2017/06/trump-cuba-... It still represents a reversal towards a more aggressive stance. Also, this is worth pointing out: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1094612 EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. Even during the pandemic, Cuba was not allowed to receive vaccine supplies from the international community, and had to develop their own. What is that if not an act of aggression?
- jonnybgood 5y ago
  The embargo can only be lifted by Congress. What Trump says and does are two different things. Follow the policy. He never actually reversed it. > EDIT: I'm still not sure what you mean by "incorrect when it comes to actual policy," in case that wasn't clear. The policy of the U.S. has been to prevent Cuba from engaging in international trade as a sovereign nation for decades. That is still the case. There cannot be a campaign to sway public opinion for US intervention when there has been a policy in effect for the warming of relations for the last 7 years. It's a contradiction in policy.
  - salt-thrower 5y ago
    > There cannot be a campaign to sway public opinion for US intervention when there has been a policy in effect for the warming of relations for the last 7 years. It's a contradiction in policy. That is simply not true. I don't know how you can see the current situation as "warming" just because a few select economic interests have access to the island now - the vast, vast majority of trade and economic activity is still blocked by the United States. I'll repeat again that pandemic aid of all things isn't even allowed in. Also, it is absolutely the case that different areas of the U.S. government can have seemingly different attitudes and policies towards certain issues. The government is not a monolith, and the intelligence apparatus especially is almost completely unaccountable to any outside interests, including Congress and the judiciary. Your assumption that that "oh well Obama let cruise ships go there again, so the CIA must have completely given up their decades-long goal of overthrowing the Cuban government" is way off. EDIT: and before you say something like "the CIA is beholden to the executive branch, so they must be in sync" I'll just repeat again that your view of the policy as "warming" is a big stretch. TL;DR: Obama's slight relaxation of the embargo doesn't mean that the intelligence services don't still want to destabilize the Cuban government and pursue U.S. intervention, and if that is the case, press releases to gin up anti-Cuban sentiment would be part of that playbook. Those are absolutely still compatible. I rest my case.