Consider the beneficiaries of Battista's regime. Examine the elements supporting Castro's rise. Factor in Castro's unpredicted "180 degree turn" against certain businesses and industries within Cuba (many having relocated to the Dominican Republic), and the data will lead you to an understanding of what might be best described as a "sour grapes" international policy.

Among the reasons the embargo against Cuba was not effective in making the Cuban people overthrow Castro is the fact that we took a lot of immigrants from Cuba. You see, that is the primary distinction between the wall coming down in Eastern Europe and Castro still remaining in power in Cuba.

When the Soviets put up the wall in Eastern Europe, it was for the purpose of preventing the population from escaping into the West. This meant that those who were disillusioned were forced to remain within their borders. Eventually, over time, the discontented masses accumulated and forced change upon the Eastern European governments and the wall eventually came down along with the demise of the Soviet Union.

The United States relieved Cuba of that scenario because we allowed so much immigration into the United States and not only did we take the most discontented of the population, those same people are sending money home, which helps to prop up the Cuban economy. There is not enough incentive for the Cuban people to overthrow the government because the angriest of the masses are in America, not in Cuba.

Castro didn't mind too much that some Cubans sought to flee Cuba because, in his words, "I don't mind pouring Cuban scum upon America." In Castro's mind, those who are so discontented that they are willing to construct a makeshift boat to leave the country are scum.

The United States, of course, had compassion towards those so desperate to seek refuge in America that they would not only brave the elements on their makeshift rafts and boats but also left family and friends behind for the sake of their own freedom.

So the question remains: Where does the true compassion lie? By accepting countless Cuban refugees, we have allowed the oppressive Cuban system to remain in place; which in turn denies the people various freedoms as well as opportunities for prosperity. However, at the same time, it would have been difficult to turn our backs on the Cuban refugees and boat people. The embargo is not a cure-all. The embargo in and of itself has limited effectiveness. That effectiveness is limited by a variety of conflicting policies set forth by the United States.

You can't have an embargo at the same time you accept a large number of Cuban refugees. It defeats the purpose of the embargo. The purpose of the embargo was to make the Cuban people so angry at their government that they would try to overthrow it and institute a capitalist democracy. Yet, at the same time, we take those who are most displeased with the Cuban government and relieve the Cuban government of potential revolutionaries that might overthrow it.

The most sensible approach to the situation is to make the decision: Either institute more policies that would be complimentary to the embargo that would achieve the desired result (overthrow of the communists) or just end the embargo. Then with the ending of the embargo, you might hope that once the people get a taste of economic prosperity, they might slowly move towards a free market economy. Just as some Eastern Europeans have since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

There is only one thing that is certain. That is that the embargo has not worked, in the sense that it has not nearly achieved the desired result. Another certainty would be that it makes more sense to either go all the way with policies that would compliment the embargo to make it more effective or just end it. It seems as if we have been trying to have it both ways. However, having it both ways hasn't worked.

Do we have an embargo with Iraq?

"free thinkers are dangerous, and beautiful"

End the embargo! Did you know that any American that goes there can be fined $300,000 for doing so, except the elite of Hollywood? There are thousands who do go, though, through Costa Rica or other countries. Cuba doesn't stamp the passports of Americans (they insert a form that can be removed later), so nobody knows that they actually went there. Big farce! Why continue to ostracize Cubans? Castro is no threat anymore. Communism is supposedly dead. What's the point? Maybe Castro has truth too important to bear by our politicians?

Los Vegas, Hawaii, Florida. What was happening in 1959? Cuba was on the road to great wealth. It is on a beautiful island only 90 MILES from the U.S., Sphere of economic influence, that simple. are we not the only ones who have an embargo against them? If this is true, then why is Cuba unable to function w/out u.s. capital. the Embargo will end and we will pay an economic price. Lets see, go to a desert and Gamble or go to an island paradise. lets see, fly to Hawaii or take a ferry to Cuba. nuf said.

Wikipedia has fairly good reference on the Cuban embargo, but it fails to mention The New York Time's
role in bringing Castro to power, and why some Cubans were upset with Batista. According to wiki, "By now (2007) The US is the largest food supplier of Cuba and its 6th trading partner."

In my opinion, Castro has been able to keep power by blaming the US for the crap condition of his island slave camp-the old, unite the people with an outside enemy trick . US policy has punished the average Cuban and US exporters enough. US foreign policy toward Cuba and some of the rest of the world has produced huge increases in the Overall Human Misery Index.

Spring of 1968 I got to spend a little time at GITMO. Castro's thugs would gun down a family and leave them to bloat in the hot sun as a warning to other miscreants. The Cubans were rationed water then, barely getting enough to drink-let alone wash. Food was rationed , also. It was an organic subsistence diet with little or no meat. This very healthy diet of practically nothing made Castro's dental plan the delight of all US progressives. Not eating produces very little tooth wear.

Could embargos be considered isolationist?

I know we're probably still in the "wait and see" mode, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, even with only 48 years of experience, the embargo will probably not convince the Cuban people to overthrow Castro, nor for him to step down. He will, however, die of natural causes before we lift it.

If only trading with the Cuban people and showing them the benefits of capitalism wasn't so un-American, I suppose we could try that.

Tom Mullen

www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs

We trade and do business with Communist China which has countless nukes pointed at us but we keep up the embargo against Cuba. Doesn't make much sense, does it? I'll have to use a Dr. Phil'ism here... "is it workin' for us?" If 40+ years of embargo didn't kill communism there, then maybe its time to change our strategy. Perhaps a little taste of capitalism would go a long way toward changing Cuba's political landscape - especially since Fidel is now mostly out of the picture. Freedom and liberty are best disseminated by good example. A Ron Paul non interventionist foreign policy is the best way to accomplish that without getting our noses chopped off by sticking it into other nations' affairs.

But I agree with TruthSerum in that this will never happen so long as the neocons have our nation in a stranglehold... yet another reason to put the neocons out on their butts.

________________________________________
Druck for Congress
14th Illinois Congressional District
www.TimeForDan.com
(847) 426-1974
180 S. Western Ave. #201
Carpentersville, IL 60110

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

Opening the door to Cuba won't happen while the neocons still have control. But if conditions change, then by all means, it's time to reckon up with our neighbor to the south.

___________________
Freedom is an inside job

Maintaining it costs the Cubans yes. America and all allies and nations under its thumb or reliant on America cannot trade with Cuba. I'm not sure if it's still considered a blockade but effectively it acts as one, it's much like trade sanctions against any other country like Iraq (those resulted in the death of millions of citizens btw well before the current war). Anyway, there is a lengthy history I won't get into but basically the public reason for bad relations with Cuba is because Fidel is a 'dictator', they have poor human rights record etc etc. The private reason is because Fidel was and is backed by the majority of Cubans and he revolted against the former dictator Batista who was backed by the united states.

That doesn't begin to get into it but I figured since they are your friendly neighbors there would be some opinion one way or another :)
This is one of those situations where your media failed badly so id' understand if there is somewhat of a lack of knowledge on the subject. Fascinating though if you follow the history.

I, Garland, will knock you all down!

Does it cost us anything? Does it do anything for the Cubans?