4 ms·

Cutting through the bullshit, the real issue behind US embargos against Cuba was whether Cuba was involved in any kind of warfare conducted against the US. The

by pekk 11y ago

Cutting through the bullshit, the real issue behind US embargos against Cuba was whether Cuba was involved in any kind of warfare conducted against the US. The Moncada Barracks was one thing, the missile crisis was another, the Mariel boatlift another, and FARC yet another - just to name a few. But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela Cuban support to the ANC and its armed wing, which the US considered a terrorist organization while it was actively backing the apartheid regime as a bulwark against Communism in southern Africa, was among very many instances of Cuban support for "terrorist" groups cited by US governments as evidence of Cuba's role as a sponsor of international terrorism in the 1980s. Of course, the embargo and the sanctions related to inclusion on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list are also two entirely separate things.
lx 11y ago
"The Moncada Barracks"? Seriously? Back then (1953), US government support to the dictatorship in Cuba was quite evident, but I don't think they would dub "terrorists" those attempting to overthrow it.
bilbo0s 11y ago
"...But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda..." ??? Are you serious ??? I can't really tell whether you meant that as sarcasm ??? or if you really believe that Mandela wasn't one of the many reasons Cuba is on the list ??? Firstly, we're discussing possible reasons that Cuba was on the terrorism list... not reasons that Cuba was under embargo. So I'm confused by your conflation of the two issues at the outset. Secondly, I should clarify that I wasn't saying all of the reasons are legitimate, quite the contrary actually. But to imply that ETA, Mandela, etc are not the reasons Cuba was on that list is plainly incorrect. Lastly, I apologize if your comment was meant as sarcasm. It's difficult to really tell whether people are serious or not on HN these days.

by pekk 11y ago

dragonwriter 11y ago

> But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela Cuban support to the ANC and its armed wing, which the US considered a terrorist organization while it was actively backing the apartheid regime as a bulwark against Communism in southern Africa, was among very many instances of Cuban support for "terrorist" groups cited by US governments as evidence of Cuba's role as a sponsor of international terrorism in the 1980s. Of course, the embargo and the sanctions related to inclusion on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list are also two entirely separate things.

lx 11y ago

"The Moncada Barracks"? Seriously? Back then (1953), US government support to the dictatorship in Cuba was quite evident, but I don't think they would dub "terrorists" those attempting to overthrow it.

bilbo0s 11y ago

"...But Cuba was never under an embargo because of Mandela and implying that is the purest propaganda..." ??? Are you serious ??? I can't really tell whether you meant that as sarcasm ??? or if you really believe that Mandela wasn't one of the many reasons Cuba is on the list ??? Firstly, we're discussing possible reasons that Cuba was on the terrorism list... not reasons that Cuba was under embargo. So I'm confused by your conflation of the two issues at the outset. Secondly, I should clarify that I wasn't saying all of the reasons are legitimate, quite the contrary actually. But to imply that ETA, Mandela, etc are not the reasons Cuba was on that list is plainly incorrect. Lastly, I apologize if your comment was meant as sarcasm. It's difficult to really tell whether people are serious or not on HN these days.