Is the US to blame for all of Cuba's ills?

[Flash]

 

[Flash]

 

[struth]

U.S. Vows Only to 'Condemn' Cuba Violence As Havana Accuses Washington

Thousands protested in Havana, as well as San Antonio de los Baños and Palma Soriano, on July 11 to demand President Miguel Diaz-Canel step down.

www.newsweek.com

As people in Cuba begin to protest their government because of shortages and long lines and a failing economy, etc., government officials in Cuba blame the US for all their ills.

So is the US to blame? On the one hand, Marxists want to destroy the US, but on the other hand, seem to complain when the US does not help them economically or boycotts them economically. Why then do they want to destroy the US economy that they seem to need?

Either that or there is some other hidden way the US is destroying Cuba

Anyone?

And the only response from Joe Biden is that he condemns any violence. There is no support for anyone as he basically ignores what is gong on.

I assume Bernie Sanders is having a panic attack and does blame the US

So what about you?

We used to buy Cuba whole sugar crop.. Then the Sugar Beet lobby got the upper hand. Naturally the Soviets stepped in an bought the whole crop until the end of the USSR. Esso Cuba used to have an oil refinery there.

Yep. we used to...then the leftist took the country over by force and created a leftist oppressive tyranny.

We used to do a lot of business there before that happened

We drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets. We did the same thing with Nasser and the Suez Canal.

hahaha no no....sorry....Castro was a leftist, backed by the USSR before he took over the country and nationalized it with leftist policies.

Companies like ESSO left because the leftist Govt nationalized the oil industry...geez

Look at the timeline.

Excerpt:

In fact, a factor that contributed to a large extent to Castro’s rise to power can arguably be Batista’s government.

Batista’s government was the main cause of instability in Cuba from 1952 up to 1st of January 1959. Batista seized power and created a dictatorship. Moreover, adding to this dictatorship, his government was also corrupted.

This factor led to Castro’s rise to power as the Cubans did not want to live under such government which used violence as a mean to control the population.

It is essential to know that during this time, the United-States of America had influence over Cuba and backed Batista’s government. Those factors influenced Castro’s rise to power as Batista’s response against opposition did not prove to be efficient enough to stop Castro rise to power as guerrilla warfare, a war tactic used by Castro which was a forceful technique and a determining factor in his rise to power.

As stated by Leo Huberman and Paul.M.Sweezy , this success also relied on the participation of the Cuban population: "the peasants in increasing numbers joined the rebel army or organized the various civilian links and services which are so crucial to the success of a guerrilla movement."

The successful guerrilla war is a direct cause in Fidel Castro’s rise to power as it was effective and linked to ideology as the guerrilla movement rested upon the Cuban peasantry and its cooperation.

Causes Of Fidel Castro's Rise To Power | ipl.org

Fidel Castro’s rise to power involves different factors but historians disagree concerning which one is directly responsible for Castro’s being in power....

www.ipl.org

yeah i know that time line…why on earth would the USA help a Marxist paramilitary over throw a Govt? especially in the late 50s?

How do you think Batista came to power?

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1933 coupFirst presidency (1940–1944)Post-presidencyMilitary coup and second presidency (1952–1959)

Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar was a Cuban military officer and politician who served as the elected president of Cuba from 1940 to 1944 and as its U.S.-backed military dictator from 1952 to 1959 before being overthrown during the Cuban Revolution. Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 Revolt of the Sergeants, which overthrew the provisional government of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes y Quesada. He then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel and effectively controlled the f…

he wasn't a Soviet backed Commie...and was elected. There is no doubt he was corrupt, and we certainly offered to help reform the Govt to root that corruption out....but...that's not the question...

I want you to stop deflecting, and answer my question....why do you think the US would have helped a Soviet backed Commie like Castro? why would we have? We were in the middle of the Cold War with USSR.

The cold war went on way too long. And, here we are still fussing about little Cuba.

i don’t disagree…thankfully we elected Reagan to finally end it.

there is nothing to really argue about with Cuba. We should support the people wanting freedom from the oppressive leftist regime

 

[surada]

U.S. Vows Only to 'Condemn' Cuba Violence As Havana Accuses Washington

Thousands protested in Havana, as well as San Antonio de los Baños and Palma Soriano, on July 11 to demand President Miguel Diaz-Canel step down.

www.newsweek.com

As people in Cuba begin to protest their government because of shortages and long lines and a failing economy, etc., government officials in Cuba blame the US for all their ills.

So is the US to blame? On the one hand, Marxists want to destroy the US, but on the other hand, seem to complain when the US does not help them economically or boycotts them economically. Why then do they want to destroy the US economy that they seem to need?

Either that or there is some other hidden way the US is destroying Cuba

Anyone?

And the only response from Joe Biden is that he condemns any violence. There is no support for anyone as he basically ignores what is gong on.

I assume Bernie Sanders is having a panic attack and does blame the US

So what about you?

We used to buy Cuba whole sugar crop.. Then the Sugar Beet lobby got the upper hand. Naturally the Soviets stepped in an bought the whole crop until the end of the USSR. Esso Cuba used to have an oil refinery there.

Yep. we used to...then the leftist took the country over by force and created a leftist oppressive tyranny.

We used to do a lot of business there before that happened

We drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets. We did the same thing with Nasser and the Suez Canal.

hahaha no no....sorry....Castro was a leftist, backed by the USSR before he took over the country and nationalized it with leftist policies.

Companies like ESSO left because the leftist Govt nationalized the oil industry...geez

Look at the timeline.

Excerpt:

In fact, a factor that contributed to a large extent to Castro’s rise to power can arguably be Batista’s government.

Batista’s government was the main cause of instability in Cuba from 1952 up to 1st of January 1959. Batista seized power and created a dictatorship. Moreover, adding to this dictatorship, his government was also corrupted.

This factor led to Castro’s rise to power as the Cubans did not want to live under such government which used violence as a mean to control the population.

It is essential to know that during this time, the United-States of America had influence over Cuba and backed Batista’s government. Those factors influenced Castro’s rise to power as Batista’s response against opposition did not prove to be efficient enough to stop Castro rise to power as guerrilla warfare, a war tactic used by Castro which was a forceful technique and a determining factor in his rise to power.

As stated by Leo Huberman and Paul.M.Sweezy , this success also relied on the participation of the Cuban population: "the peasants in increasing numbers joined the rebel army or organized the various civilian links and services which are so crucial to the success of a guerrilla movement."

The successful guerrilla war is a direct cause in Fidel Castro’s rise to power as it was effective and linked to ideology as the guerrilla movement rested upon the Cuban peasantry and its cooperation.

Causes Of Fidel Castro's Rise To Power | ipl.org

Fidel Castro’s rise to power involves different factors but historians disagree concerning which one is directly responsible for Castro’s being in power....

www.ipl.org

yeah i know that time line…why on earth would the USA help a Marxist paramilitary over throw a Govt? especially in the late 50s?

How do you think Batista came to power?

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1933 coupFirst presidency (1940–1944)Post-presidencyMilitary coup and second presidency (1952–1959)

Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar was a Cuban military officer and politician who served as the elected president of Cuba from 1940 to 1944 and as its U.S.-backed military dictator from 1952 to 1959 before being overthrown during the Cuban Revolution. Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 Revolt of the Sergeants, which overthrew the provisional government of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes y Quesada. He then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel and effectively controlled the f…

he wasn't a Soviet backed Commie...and was elected. There is no doubt he was corrupt, and we certainly offered to help reform the Govt to root that corruption out....but...that's not the question...

I want you to stop deflecting, and answer my question....why do you think the US would have helped a Soviet backed Commie like Castro? why would we have? We were in the middle of the Cold War with USSR.

The cold war went on way too long. And, here we are still fussing about little Cuba.

i don’t disagree…thankfully we elected Reagan to finally end it.

there is nothing to really argue about with Cuba. We should support the people wanting freedom from the oppressive leftist regime

Reagan didn't really end it. Gorbechev had his order to fix it (communism) or end it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Uncle josef can't have them fighting for freedom. He'll go all in with the marxists.

What do you want President Biden todo?

Nothing. Cuba is a dump.

I'd like to see Cuba. It would be a snapshot in time.

We should lift sanctions and normalize relations.

Yes, a snapshot in the 1950s. This is what communism looks like. Interesting that all hollywood celebs and libs romanticize about this communist dump.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years?

Yeah, that was awesome!

No, it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.
Economic warfare has been a war crime ever since 1906.
You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.

Post the text that you feel applies.

You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

Wanna bet?

The Geneva Conventions are long, and so are the previous Hague Conventions, but here is a more recent summary regarding Syria that shows all the relevant facts about international law.

{...
Current international humanitarian law (IHL) — the law of armed conflict — makes clear that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as a tactic of war is prohibited and a prosecutable war crime. This prohibition finds expression in Additional Protocol I (API) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which states that besieging forces may not starve civilians “as a method of warfare.” Similarly, it is prohibited to “attack, destroy, remove or render useless” any items necessary for civilians’ survival (e.g., food, land used to cultivate food, water, irrigation works, etc.), regardless of whether the objective is to starve the civilian population, to cause them to move, or some other motive.

This latter prohibition does not apply to resources used exclusively to sustain a an adversary’s armed forces or in direct support of military action. Such resources may be directly targeted because they constitute “military objectives.” Moreover, in instances of “imperative military necessity” to counter an invader, a state party may derogate from the above prohibition and resort to “scorched earth” tactics.

These rules govern international armed conflicts (i.e., those between states, or IACs). A similar set of prohibitions appears in Article 14 of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which governs some non-international armed conflicts (i.e., NIACs, or conflicts between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors). Additionally, the ICRC considers the prohibition on deliberately starving civilians to be part of customary international law, regardless of conflict classification. Nonetheless, deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare may be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) only when committed in an IAC. Once more, we see that even when conduct is is clearly recognized as a war crime, it is not always easy to find a court in which it can be prosecuted.

The fact that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as method of war is now universally condemned, and even criminal, marks an important evolution in the law.
...
Geneva Convention IV, aimed at the protection of non-combatants in IACs, provides that states must allow the free passage of medical consignments, food, and other relief supplies for the benefit of the civilian population.
...}

Resolution 2139

unscr.com

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.
{...
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...}

The Geneva Conventions are long, and so are the previous Hague Conventions, but here is a more recent summary regarding Syria that shows all the relevant facts about international law.

Thanks. Now post the part that says embargoes or trade sanctions are an illegal criminal act.

 

[gipper]

All? No. Do we still have justifications for sanctions? Absolutely not. Cuba is an excellent example to show why sanctions do not work and only harm the people.

Did sanctions on Cuba for 60 years change anything? No.

Would the people be better off today if we had opened relations with Cuba? I will say, yes.

JFK and his peculiar A.G. brother (and the CIA) ruined relations with Cuba with their exploding cigar diplomacy and criminal attempts to support an invasion army but t. Ihe media loved Camelot and JFK could do no wrong.

The Russians Backed Down Only Because the CIA Agreed to Get Rid of the Kennedy Brothers

Because of indecision, JFK let Cuban patriots get slaughtered on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs. Shamed for that, he went to the other extreme and became a loose cannon who almost provoked nuclear war. Being praised for that successful but reckless policy, he would have gotten us as deeply into Vietnam as LBJ did.

The CIA did not get rid of them. Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and massive alcohol consumption got rid of them.

Wrong as always Allen Dulles III.

 

[gipper]

Yes the US is in part, to blame.

See all this white space here to type in is where you get to splain your point. I was not looking really for a short yes or no.

Continue

Okay no problem, but I just did that in another thread on this topic.

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years? Now put the puzzle together. The world’s preeminent economic and military nation doing this to Cuba for 60 FUCKING YEARS, will have a negative impact.

No? Yes?

What Trade did the US stop with Cuba aside from its own? Communist Cuba had every opportunity to trade with every nation besides the US.

Cuba…… another Communist failure. VIVA CAPITALISMO!

This continues to be the motto of you crazed statists. Then you claim the embargo had no effect on impoverishing Cubans, but communism did…lol…if it had no effect why do it?

Secondly, who do you think they could trade with in 1960s and 1970s, when much of the first world was still recovering economically from WWII. THINK! In the much of those early decades of the embargo the US was the world’s manufacturer. THINK! DON’T EMOTE.

Thirdly, do you not know the US pressured nations not to trade with Cuba?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years?

Yeah, that was awesome!

No, it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.
Economic warfare has been a war crime ever since 1906.
You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.

Post the text that you feel applies.

You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

Wanna bet?

The Geneva Conventions are long, and so are the previous Hague Conventions, but here is a more recent summary regarding Syria that shows all the relevant facts about international law.

{...
Current international humanitarian law (IHL) — the law of armed conflict — makes clear that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as a tactic of war is prohibited and a prosecutable war crime. This prohibition finds expression in Additional Protocol I (API) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which states that besieging forces may not starve civilians “as a method of warfare.” Similarly, it is prohibited to “attack, destroy, remove or render useless” any items necessary for civilians’ survival (e.g., food, land used to cultivate food, water, irrigation works, etc.), regardless of whether the objective is to starve the civilian population, to cause them to move, or some other motive.

This latter prohibition does not apply to resources used exclusively to sustain a an adversary’s armed forces or in direct support of military action. Such resources may be directly targeted because they constitute “military objectives.” Moreover, in instances of “imperative military necessity” to counter an invader, a state party may derogate from the above prohibition and resort to “scorched earth” tactics.

These rules govern international armed conflicts (i.e., those between states, or IACs). A similar set of prohibitions appears in Article 14 of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which governs some non-international armed conflicts (i.e., NIACs, or conflicts between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors). Additionally, the ICRC considers the prohibition on deliberately starving civilians to be part of customary international law, regardless of conflict classification. Nonetheless, deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare may be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) only when committed in an IAC. Once more, we see that even when conduct is is clearly recognized as a war crime, it is not always easy to find a court in which it can be prosecuted.

The fact that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as method of war is now universally condemned, and even criminal, marks an important evolution in the law.
...
Geneva Convention IV, aimed at the protection of non-combatants in IACs, provides that states must allow the free passage of medical consignments, food, and other relief supplies for the benefit of the civilian population.
...}

Resolution 2139

unscr.com

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.
{...
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...}

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.

What's your source for this?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

With the blockade of Cuba, we are only deliberately targeting civilians

What blockade?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the government of Cuba was historically popular.

If I could throw people who didn't like me into prison, my polling numbers would be awesome!!!

 

[Colin norris]

U.S. Vows Only to 'Condemn' Cuba Violence As Havana Accuses Washington

Thousands protested in Havana, as well as San Antonio de los Baños and Palma Soriano, on July 11 to demand President Miguel Diaz-Canel step down.

www.newsweek.com

As people in Cuba begin to protest their government because of shortages and long lines and a failing economy, etc., government officials in Cuba blame the US for all their ills.

So is the US to blame? On the one hand, Marxists want to destroy the US, but on the other hand, seem to complain when the US does not help them economically or boycotts them economically. Why then do they want to destroy the US economy that they seem to need?

Either that or there is some other hidden way the US is destroying Cuba

Anyone?

And the only response from Joe Biden is that he condemns any violence. There is no support for anyone as he basically ignores what is gong on.

I assume Bernie Sanders is having a panic attack and does blame the US

So what about you?

Name one group of who you called Marxists, are out to destroy America?
See how good you are now.

The US has some sanctions still applicable which are not helping bit not totally responsible.

 

[gipper]

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years?

Yeah, that was awesome!

No, it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.
Economic warfare has been a war crime ever since 1906.
You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.

Post the text that you feel applies.

You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

Wanna bet?

The Geneva Conventions are long, and so are the previous Hague Conventions, but here is a more recent summary regarding Syria that shows all the relevant facts about international law.

{...
Current international humanitarian law (IHL) — the law of armed conflict — makes clear that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as a tactic of war is prohibited and a prosecutable war crime. This prohibition finds expression in Additional Protocol I (API) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which states that besieging forces may not starve civilians “as a method of warfare.” Similarly, it is prohibited to “attack, destroy, remove or render useless” any items necessary for civilians’ survival (e.g., food, land used to cultivate food, water, irrigation works, etc.), regardless of whether the objective is to starve the civilian population, to cause them to move, or some other motive.

This latter prohibition does not apply to resources used exclusively to sustain a an adversary’s armed forces or in direct support of military action. Such resources may be directly targeted because they constitute “military objectives.” Moreover, in instances of “imperative military necessity” to counter an invader, a state party may derogate from the above prohibition and resort to “scorched earth” tactics.

These rules govern international armed conflicts (i.e., those between states, or IACs). A similar set of prohibitions appears in Article 14 of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which governs some non-international armed conflicts (i.e., NIACs, or conflicts between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors). Additionally, the ICRC considers the prohibition on deliberately starving civilians to be part of customary international law, regardless of conflict classification. Nonetheless, deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare may be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) only when committed in an IAC. Once more, we see that even when conduct is is clearly recognized as a war crime, it is not always easy to find a court in which it can be prosecuted.

The fact that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as method of war is now universally condemned, and even criminal, marks an important evolution in the law.
...
Geneva Convention IV, aimed at the protection of non-combatants in IACs, provides that states must allow the free passage of medical consignments, food, and other relief supplies for the benefit of the civilian population.
...}

Resolution 2139

unscr.com

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.
{...
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...}

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.

What's your source for this?

Lol. If you believe that I’ve got a freeway bridge I can sell you cheap.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Third is that they violate the 4th and 5th amendment because the take away the ability to make money, without any compensation.

You still have the ability to make money.

If your business is dependent upon selling Cuban sugar or taking tourists to Cuba casinos, then these illegal economic sanctions put you out of business without any reason or compensation.
The federal government can not decide who they like or dislike and then force everyone to go along with it.
For example, it is legal for someone in the US to like communism and want to support it in Cuba.
It is illegal to prevent someone in the US from supporting their political beliefs about Cuba.

Section 8: Powers of Congress​

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Thanks for playing.

 

[pknopp]

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years?

Yeah, that was awesome!

No, it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.
Economic warfare has been a war crime ever since 1906.
You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.

Post the text that you feel applies.

You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

Wanna bet?

The Geneva Conventions are long, and so are the previous Hague Conventions, but here is a more recent summary regarding Syria that shows all the relevant facts about international law.

{...
Current international humanitarian law (IHL) — the law of armed conflict — makes clear that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as a tactic of war is prohibited and a prosecutable war crime. This prohibition finds expression in Additional Protocol I (API) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which states that besieging forces may not starve civilians “as a method of warfare.” Similarly, it is prohibited to “attack, destroy, remove or render useless” any items necessary for civilians’ survival (e.g., food, land used to cultivate food, water, irrigation works, etc.), regardless of whether the objective is to starve the civilian population, to cause them to move, or some other motive.

This latter prohibition does not apply to resources used exclusively to sustain a an adversary’s armed forces or in direct support of military action. Such resources may be directly targeted because they constitute “military objectives.” Moreover, in instances of “imperative military necessity” to counter an invader, a state party may derogate from the above prohibition and resort to “scorched earth” tactics.

These rules govern international armed conflicts (i.e., those between states, or IACs). A similar set of prohibitions appears in Article 14 of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which governs some non-international armed conflicts (i.e., NIACs, or conflicts between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors). Additionally, the ICRC considers the prohibition on deliberately starving civilians to be part of customary international law, regardless of conflict classification. Nonetheless, deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare may be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) only when committed in an IAC. Once more, we see that even when conduct is is clearly recognized as a war crime, it is not always easy to find a court in which it can be prosecuted.

The fact that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as method of war is now universally condemned, and even criminal, marks an important evolution in the law.
...
Geneva Convention IV, aimed at the protection of non-combatants in IACs, provides that states must allow the free passage of medical consignments, food, and other relief supplies for the benefit of the civilian population.
...}

Resolution 2139

unscr.com

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.
{...
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...}

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.

What's your source for this?

At least you acknowledge you don't support free markets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law.

Do they ever say it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1906? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We should lift sanctions and normalize relations.

As soon as the Commies are removed from power.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes the US is in part, to blame.

See all this white space here to type in is where you get to splain your point. I was not looking really for a short yes or no.

Continue

Okay no problem, but I just did that in another thread on this topic.

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years? Now put the puzzle together. The world’s preeminent economic and military nation doing this to Cuba for 60 FUCKING YEARS, will have a negative impact.

No? Yes?

What Trade did the US stop with Cuba aside from its own? Communist Cuba had every opportunity to trade with every nation besides the US.

Cuba…… another Communist failure. VIVA CAPITALISMO!

Fidel Castro came to power because of failed capitalism and corruption.

The marxist dictator came to power by murdering hundreds of thousands of people. He imprisoned his own daughter and sister.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you aware the US has heavily sanctioned and stopped all trade with Cuba for 60 years?

Yeah, that was awesome!

No, it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.
Economic warfare has been a war crime ever since 1906.
You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

it was an illegal criminal act, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1906 that the US signed.

Post the text that you feel applies.

You can interdict weapons only, not civilian good.

Wanna bet?

The Geneva Conventions are long, and so are the previous Hague Conventions, but here is a more recent summary regarding Syria that shows all the relevant facts about international law.

{...
Current international humanitarian law (IHL) — the law of armed conflict — makes clear that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as a tactic of war is prohibited and a prosecutable war crime. This prohibition finds expression in Additional Protocol I (API) to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which states that besieging forces may not starve civilians “as a method of warfare.” Similarly, it is prohibited to “attack, destroy, remove or render useless” any items necessary for civilians’ survival (e.g., food, land used to cultivate food, water, irrigation works, etc.), regardless of whether the objective is to starve the civilian population, to cause them to move, or some other motive.

This latter prohibition does not apply to resources used exclusively to sustain a an adversary’s armed forces or in direct support of military action. Such resources may be directly targeted because they constitute “military objectives.” Moreover, in instances of “imperative military necessity” to counter an invader, a state party may derogate from the above prohibition and resort to “scorched earth” tactics.

These rules govern international armed conflicts (i.e., those between states, or IACs). A similar set of prohibitions appears in Article 14 of Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which governs some non-international armed conflicts (i.e., NIACs, or conflicts between states and non-state actors or between non-state actors). Additionally, the ICRC considers the prohibition on deliberately starving civilians to be part of customary international law, regardless of conflict classification. Nonetheless, deliberately starving civilians as a method of warfare may be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC) only when committed in an IAC. Once more, we see that even when conduct is is clearly recognized as a war crime, it is not always easy to find a court in which it can be prosecuted.

The fact that the deliberate starvation of the civilian population as method of war is now universally condemned, and even criminal, marks an important evolution in the law.
...
Geneva Convention IV, aimed at the protection of non-combatants in IACs, provides that states must allow the free passage of medical consignments, food, and other relief supplies for the benefit of the civilian population.
...}

Resolution 2139

unscr.com

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.
{...
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
...}

The federal government is not authorized to block international commerce when not at war, and it is a violation of the 5th amendment when it interferes with private commerce between US citizens and Cuba.

What's your source for this?

Lol. If you believe that I’ve got a freeway bridge I can sell you cheap.

I know, Rigby's claims are nutty!

 

[struth]

U.S. Vows Only to 'Condemn' Cuba Violence As Havana Accuses Washington

Thousands protested in Havana, as well as San Antonio de los Baños and Palma Soriano, on July 11 to demand President Miguel Diaz-Canel step down.

www.newsweek.com

As people in Cuba begin to protest their government because of shortages and long lines and a failing economy, etc., government officials in Cuba blame the US for all their ills.

So is the US to blame? On the one hand, Marxists want to destroy the US, but on the other hand, seem to complain when the US does not help them economically or boycotts them economically. Why then do they want to destroy the US economy that they seem to need?

Either that or there is some other hidden way the US is destroying Cuba

Anyone?

And the only response from Joe Biden is that he condemns any violence. There is no support for anyone as he basically ignores what is gong on.

I assume Bernie Sanders is having a panic attack and does blame the US

So what about you?

We used to buy Cuba whole sugar crop.. Then the Sugar Beet lobby got the upper hand. Naturally the Soviets stepped in an bought the whole crop until the end of the USSR. Esso Cuba used to have an oil refinery there.

Yep. we used to...then the leftist took the country over by force and created a leftist oppressive tyranny.

We used to do a lot of business there before that happened

We drove Cuba into the arms of the Soviets. We did the same thing with Nasser and the Suez Canal.

hahaha no no....sorry....Castro was a leftist, backed by the USSR before he took over the country and nationalized it with leftist policies.

Companies like ESSO left because the leftist Govt nationalized the oil industry...geez

Look at the timeline.

Excerpt:

In fact, a factor that contributed to a large extent to Castro’s rise to power can arguably be Batista’s government.

Batista’s government was the main cause of instability in Cuba from 1952 up to 1st of January 1959. Batista seized power and created a dictatorship. Moreover, adding to this dictatorship, his government was also corrupted.

This factor led to Castro’s rise to power as the Cubans did not want to live under such government which used violence as a mean to control the population.

It is essential to know that during this time, the United-States of America had influence over Cuba and backed Batista’s government. Those factors influenced Castro’s rise to power as Batista’s response against opposition did not prove to be efficient enough to stop Castro rise to power as guerrilla warfare, a war tactic used by Castro which was a forceful technique and a determining factor in his rise to power.

As stated by Leo Huberman and Paul.M.Sweezy , this success also relied on the participation of the Cuban population: "the peasants in increasing numbers joined the rebel army or organized the various civilian links and services which are so crucial to the success of a guerrilla movement."

The successful guerrilla war is a direct cause in Fidel Castro’s rise to power as it was effective and linked to ideology as the guerrilla movement rested upon the Cuban peasantry and its cooperation.

Causes Of Fidel Castro's Rise To Power | ipl.org

Fidel Castro’s rise to power involves different factors but historians disagree concerning which one is directly responsible for Castro’s being in power....

www.ipl.org

yeah i know that time line…why on earth would the USA help a Marxist paramilitary over throw a Govt? especially in the late 50s?

How do you think Batista came to power?

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1933 coupFirst presidency (1940–1944)Post-presidencyMilitary coup and second presidency (1952–1959)

Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar was a Cuban military officer and politician who served as the elected president of Cuba from 1940 to 1944 and as its U.S.-backed military dictator from 1952 to 1959 before being overthrown during the Cuban Revolution. Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 Revolt of the Sergeants, which overthrew the provisional government of Carlos Manuel de Céspedes y Quesada. He then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel and effectively controlled the f…

he wasn't a Soviet backed Commie...and was elected. There is no doubt he was corrupt, and we certainly offered to help reform the Govt to root that corruption out....but...that's not the question...

I want you to stop deflecting, and answer my question....why do you think the US would have helped a Soviet backed Commie like Castro? why would we have? We were in the middle of the Cold War with USSR.

The cold war went on way too long. And, here we are still fussing about little Cuba.

i don’t disagree…thankfully we elected Reagan to finally end it.

there is nothing to really argue about with Cuba. We should support the people wanting freedom from the oppressive leftist regime

Reagan didn't really end it. Gorbechev had his order to fix it (communism) or end it.

haha by who? even so, if that’s the case…it was broke because of reagan