5 ms·

> Still, when you compare Cuba to neighboring Dominican Republic What kind of comparison is that? The DR is practically a failed state. By any rational metric

> Still, when you compare Cuba to neighboring Dominican Republic What kind of comparison is that? The DR is practically a failed state. By any rational metric Cuba is an economic and human rights disaster and continues to be. Its other, capitalistic, neighbor Mexico has 2x that GDP per capita. Heck, its only because of Western pressure that Cuba is only now, after decades of spite against its own people, started releasing political prisoners. http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/cuba http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/cuba >Unfortunately the US ruined the experiment by imposing an embargo for decades out of spite. Pardon me if I think my nation should tolerate nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast from a country aligned with our enemies who have a stated doctrine of first strike and tactic nuclear usage with zero warning in advance, held by a dictator who wanted nuclear war. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/meredithjessup/2009/09/24/nytimes_castro_wanted_soviets_to_nuke_usa http://townhall.com/tipsheet/meredithjessup/2009/09/24/nytim... I'm all for lifting of sanctions, but Cuba needs to up its game first. Rewarding the autocratic and oppressive Castro regime makes no sense. Democratic reforms, regime change, freedom of ownership, open elections, multi-parties, the right to sue, the right to travel, a free press, the right to petition, etc must all be respected. You're not automatically entitled to my money.

mercurial 12y ago
> I'm all for lifting of sanctions, but Cuba needs to up its game first. Rewarding the autocratic and oppressive Castro regime makes no sense. Democratic reforms, regime change, freedom of ownership, open elections, multi-parties, the right to sue, the right to travel, a free press, the right to petition, etc must all be respected. Sure. You must be demonstrating every day for the same sanctions to apply in about all the Middle East countries the US has bases in, right? Moral arguments don't really mesh with real politics. Sanctions against Cuba are a relic of the Cold War, but the US does business every day with countries with a worse humanitarian track record.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia never had nukes pointed at us or tried to. Ignoring the reality of the cold war and the brutality of Catro's regime and pretending everything is fine now is pretty ignorant. Modern Cuba still is the same disaster its always been. Why must the US reward the Castros? Why can't they make themselves a more viable trading partner? You're not entitled to my business, plain and simple. Whataboutism isn't addressing my issues. Sadly, knee-jerk anti-americanism passes for "intellectualism" around here. Funny how an oppressive anti-capitalist state is applauded on a forum dedicated to VC funded startups. Oh, the irony.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    > I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia never had nukes pointed at us or tried to. This was in 1963. And they sure don't have nukes now, or are likely to acquire them. Not to mention that you're conveniently forgetting US nukes in Italy and Turkey around the same time, or the Bay of Pigs invasion. > Why must the US reward the Castros? Why should it punish the Castros while turning a blind eye to Bahrain, who is busy oppressing its population with a brutality the Castro regime hasn't displayed in a long while? > Whataboutism isn't addressing my issues. If you didn't address the issue from a moral angle, your position may look a bit more solid than it is right now. Why not admit morality has a very small role to play in international politics, whatever narrative government dress it up in for internal consumption? > Sadly, knee-jerk anti-americanism passes for "intellectualism" around here. Oh, I'm not giving a pass to any government, don't worry.
  - bildung 12y ago
    I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia never had nukes pointed at us or tried to. You mean the Russian nukes from 1963? Those that were a response to the nukes the US placed all over Turkey and neighbouring countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis
trhway 12y ago
>Pardon me if I think my nation should tolerate nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast from a country aligned with our enemies Don't you think people of other nations may have the same intolerance to their enemies' nuclear missiles deployed right on their borders? The Cuban missiles were symmetric response to deploying the Jupiter missiles in Turkey - which is right on the border with USSR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter "They were all removed by the US as part of a secret agreement with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis." Do onto others what you don't want others do onto you :)
- kevinskii 12y ago
  Perhaps the Jupiter missile deterrent was a bit impolite, but the USSR did enslave many hundreds of millions of people while showing every intention of growing this number.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    The US "enslaved" vast numbers of people through proxy too, and contributed to several genocides by propping up various puppet regimes. The US may have been morally superior at home but played just as dirty in large parts of the world.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  The USSR was a totalitarian communist empire openly determined to conquer and enslave the entire world. The USA was a champion of liberty that pursued strategies intended only to defend the free world against the USSR. Your moral equivalency game indicates you're either ignorant of recent history, or that you're on the other side.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - mercurial 12y ago
    I hope this is sarcasm. Sure, the USSR was a totalitarian state. That said, both sides pursued an aggressive, expansionist policy via proxy. The "champion of liberty" installed thoroughly repressive regimes all over South America which had little to envy to the Soviet Union. It didn't prove itself above manufacturing border incidents to trigger the Vietnam war, either. Was the USSR worse? Certainly. But this doesn't make the US the good guy in the story.
davidw 12y ago
Ending the embargo would probably sweep away their failed economic experiment within 10 years. Keeping it in place gives their leadership an excuse for why the economy is so bad.
guelo 12y ago
> What kind of comparison is that? Mexico is a giant country with huge (though dwindling) oil reserves, and the advantages of NAFTA (all the Detroit automakers have relocated down there). Cuba and the DR are similar sized geographically and demographically, and have similar climates and resources. > The DR is practically a failed state. Don't know why you say that, DR has been politically stable for decades and is economically similar to many other small Latin American countries.
bilbo0s 12y ago
"...Its other, capitalistic, neighbor Mexico has 2x that GDP per capita..." Initially, I thought... that HAS to be wrong... because Mexico has 10x the resources that Cuba has. But I looked it up... and you're right... Mexico only has 2x the GDP. Not really taking any sides here on the whole capitalism v communism thing... But Mexico has 120 MILLION people, 100 times the energy reserves AND trade with the US... and it STILL cannot even double the GDP of a nation with 11 MILLION people and an embargo (ie - NO trade with the US)... (Cuba: 6,051 Mexico: 10,307) That's pretty pathetic. I mean REALLY? You have 10x the resources, 100x the energy reserves... and you can only muster twice the GDP ??? Something's not right about that. I guess that's not really a comment on Cuba as much as it is a comment on Mexico. I didn't realize it was that bad... I don't blame Mexican immigrants for trying to come to the US.
- bzbarsky 12y ago
  Twice the GDP per capita. The "per capita" part is important. The GDP of Mexico is 20 times greater than Cuba's. The population is 10 times bigger. Of course as you point out the lack of an embargo, access to oil, etc would lead you to expect that Mexico's per capita GDP would be higher than Cuba's. Whether you'd expect the factor by which it's higher to be 2 or more or less is an interesting question that I'm not qualified to answer. ;) > Something's not right about that. Yes, your understanding of the meaning of "per capita GDP".
keepper 12y ago
> What kind of comparison is that? The DR is practically a failed state. You've already gotten down voted enough, but wow. DR has had a 7% growth rate for the last 20 years, one of the highest in the Americas... Your others points are equally off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Dominican_Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Dominican_Republ...
araes 12y ago
While per capita GDP is a useful number that reveals some information about the economics of a country relative to the world stage, I may be alone in finding that its often misleading - particularly when we're talking about what life is like for the common man. In those cases, I tend to find that things like: The Big Mac Index [1]; the more general World Price Index (a standardized basket of goods) [2]; or the even more general Purchasing Power Parity [3]; are better reflective of the human scale question, which IMO is "for a common wage, what can be purchased, and how expensive is it." Basically, its great if our per capita GDP is 2x someone else, if our local prices are also 2x, then our actual wage goes roughly the same distance. Another way is: if I had the equivalent of a $1M in Cuba, went to Mexico, and exchanged it with no fee, how would my relative purchasing power change. Major Caveat: Findings for PPP are heavily dependent on your reference basket of goods. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Price_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Price_Index [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity

mercurial 12y ago

> I'm all for lifting of sanctions, but Cuba needs to up its game first. Rewarding the autocratic and oppressive Castro regime makes no sense. Democratic reforms, regime change, freedom of ownership, open elections, multi-parties, the right to sue, the right to travel, a free press, the right to petition, etc must all be respected. Sure. You must be demonstrating every day for the same sanctions to apply in about all the Middle East countries the US has bases in, right? Moral arguments don't really mesh with real politics. Sanctions against Cuba are a relic of the Cold War, but the US does business every day with countries with a worse humanitarian track record.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia never had nukes pointed at us or tried to. Ignoring the reality of the cold war and the brutality of Catro's regime and pretending everything is fine now is pretty ignorant. Modern Cuba still is the same disaster its always been. Why must the US reward the Castros? Why can't they make themselves a more viable trading partner? You're not entitled to my business, plain and simple. Whataboutism isn't addressing my issues. Sadly, knee-jerk anti-americanism passes for "intellectualism" around here. Funny how an oppressive anti-capitalist state is applauded on a forum dedicated to VC funded startups. Oh, the irony.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia never had nukes pointed at us or tried to. This was in 1963. And they sure don't have nukes now, or are likely to acquire them. Not to mention that you're conveniently forgetting US nukes in Italy and Turkey around the same time, or the Bay of Pigs invasion. > Why must the US reward the Castros? Why should it punish the Castros while turning a blind eye to Bahrain, who is busy oppressing its population with a brutality the Castro regime hasn't displayed in a long while? > Whataboutism isn't addressing my issues. If you didn't address the issue from a moral angle, your position may look a bit more solid than it is right now. Why not admit morality has a very small role to play in international politics, whatever narrative government dress it up in for internal consumption? > Sadly, knee-jerk anti-americanism passes for "intellectualism" around here. Oh, I'm not giving a pass to any government, don't worry.
- bildung 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure Saudi Arabia never had nukes pointed at us or tried to. You mean the Russian nukes from 1963? Those that were a response to the nukes the US placed all over Turkey and neighbouring countries? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis

trhway 12y ago

>Pardon me if I think my nation should tolerate nuclear missiles 90 miles off our coast from a country aligned with our enemies Don't you think people of other nations may have the same intolerance to their enemies' nuclear missiles deployed right on their borders? The Cuban missiles were symmetric response to deploying the Jupiter missiles in Turkey - which is right on the border with USSR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter "They were all removed by the US as part of a secret agreement with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis." Do onto others what you don't want others do onto you :)

kevinskii 12y ago
Perhaps the Jupiter missile deterrent was a bit impolite, but the USSR did enslave many hundreds of millions of people while showing every intention of growing this number.
- vidarh 12y ago
  The US "enslaved" vast numbers of people through proxy too, and contributed to several genocides by propping up various puppet regimes. The US may have been morally superior at home but played just as dirty in large parts of the world.
joeclark77 12y ago
The USSR was a totalitarian communist empire openly determined to conquer and enslave the entire world. The USA was a champion of liberty that pursued strategies intended only to defend the free world against the USSR. Your moral equivalency game indicates you're either ignorant of recent history, or that you're on the other side.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- mercurial 12y ago
  I hope this is sarcasm. Sure, the USSR was a totalitarian state. That said, both sides pursued an aggressive, expansionist policy via proxy. The "champion of liberty" installed thoroughly repressive regimes all over South America which had little to envy to the Soviet Union. It didn't prove itself above manufacturing border incidents to trigger the Vietnam war, either. Was the USSR worse? Certainly. But this doesn't make the US the good guy in the story.

davidw 12y ago

Ending the embargo would probably sweep away their failed economic experiment within 10 years. Keeping it in place gives their leadership an excuse for why the economy is so bad.

guelo 12y ago

> What kind of comparison is that? Mexico is a giant country with huge (though dwindling) oil reserves, and the advantages of NAFTA (all the Detroit automakers have relocated down there). Cuba and the DR are similar sized geographically and demographically, and have similar climates and resources. > The DR is practically a failed state. Don't know why you say that, DR has been politically stable for decades and is economically similar to many other small Latin American countries.

bilbo0s 12y ago

"...Its other, capitalistic, neighbor Mexico has 2x that GDP per capita..." Initially, I thought... that HAS to be wrong... because Mexico has 10x the resources that Cuba has. But I looked it up... and you're right... Mexico only has 2x the GDP. Not really taking any sides here on the whole capitalism v communism thing... But Mexico has 120 MILLION people, 100 times the energy reserves AND trade with the US... and it STILL cannot even double the GDP of a nation with 11 MILLION people and an embargo (ie - NO trade with the US)... (Cuba: 6,051 Mexico: 10,307) That's pretty pathetic. I mean REALLY? You have 10x the resources, 100x the energy reserves... and you can only muster twice the GDP ??? Something's not right about that. I guess that's not really a comment on Cuba as much as it is a comment on Mexico. I didn't realize it was that bad... I don't blame Mexican immigrants for trying to come to the US.

bzbarsky 12y ago
Twice the GDP per capita. The "per capita" part is important. The GDP of Mexico is 20 times greater than Cuba's. The population is 10 times bigger. Of course as you point out the lack of an embargo, access to oil, etc would lead you to expect that Mexico's per capita GDP would be higher than Cuba's. Whether you'd expect the factor by which it's higher to be 2 or more or less is an interesting question that I'm not qualified to answer. ;) > Something's not right about that. Yes, your understanding of the meaning of "per capita GDP".

keepper 12y ago

> What kind of comparison is that? The DR is practically a failed state. You've already gotten down voted enough, but wow. DR has had a 7% growth rate for the last 20 years, one of the highest in the Americas... Your others points are equally off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Dominican_Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Dominican_Republ...

araes 12y ago

While per capita GDP is a useful number that reveals some information about the economics of a country relative to the world stage, I may be alone in finding that its often misleading - particularly when we're talking about what life is like for the common man. In those cases, I tend to find that things like: The Big Mac Index [1]; the more general World Price Index (a standardized basket of goods) [2]; or the even more general Purchasing Power Parity [3]; are better reflective of the human scale question, which IMO is "for a common wage, what can be purchased, and how expensive is it." Basically, its great if our per capita GDP is 2x someone else, if our local prices are also 2x, then our actual wage goes roughly the same distance. Another way is: if I had the equivalent of a $1M in Cuba, went to Mexico, and exchanged it with no fee, how would my relative purchasing power change. Major Caveat: Findings for PPP are heavily dependent on your reference basket of goods. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Mac_Index [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Price_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Price_Index [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity