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

[basquebromance]

“No más mentiras,” they yelled. No more lies.⁠
⁠
“Libertad!” Freedom.⁠
⁠
And they dared to cry out “Down with Díaz-Canel” — Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel.⁠

After 62 years of oppression, repression, dysfunction and indoctrination, thousands of Cubans unshackled themselves, not by leaving the island, but by staying and speaking truth to power en masse. The videos of the protests on social media, blazing from one end of the island to the other, shook me deeply.⁠

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If only you could learn.

Sanctions are a substitute for war. If you'd rather the US attack and overrun Cuba than apply sanctions
to force the Castro brothers to leave just say so.
If the people of Cub are able to effect change by their own actions that is the ideal solution.
But that remains to be seen.

I somehow think you and others would be whining no matter what solution we applied in a nation
run by authoritarian gangsters.

And that goes for N Korea, Iran, Venezula or any other nation you can think of. Sanctions are made horrible
weapons due to intransigent dictators.
The options are outright war or simply walking away from nations run by butchers and letting the
people there suffer and die at the hands of monstrous madmen anyway.

Think you can reason with N. Korea or force it to change through military might? I doubt it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A golden opportunity to get Cubs out of a communist dictatorship

The Cubs are going to leave Chicago????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Economic sanctions are an act of war.

Liar.

If only you could learn.

If the Pentagon suddenly bombed North Korea, killing thousands of North Korean citizens, that would clearly be considered an act of war. Yet, when the U.S. government intentionally targets North Korea with economic sanctions that kill thousands of North Koreans through starvation or illness, that’s considered to be simply a peaceful diplomatic measure. That’s odd because from a practical standpoint, people are dead either way — from bombs or sanctions.

Americans have become so accustomed to the concept of sanctions that the policy has become hum-drum and commonplace. Since the violence associated with sanctions is indirect and difficult to see, people don’t put them in the same category as bombs. But the reality is that sanctions, by virtue of their targeting foreign citizens for death, are every bit an act of war as dropping bombs on them.
Sanctions Are an Act of War – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Awesome!!

When did Jacob Hornberger become someone whose opinion I give a shit about?

If any Third World nations targeted by U.S. sanctions or embargoes were First World nations, there is little doubt that they would respond with a military counterattack against the United States.

He is pretty funny. He should do stand-up.

 

[AMart]

Economic sanctions are an act of war.

Liar.

If only you could learn.

If the Pentagon suddenly bombed North Korea, killing thousands of North Korean citizens, that would clearly be considered an act of war. Yet, when the U.S. government intentionally targets North Korea with economic sanctions that kill thousands of North Koreans through starvation or illness, that’s considered to be simply a peaceful diplomatic measure. That’s odd because from a practical standpoint, people are dead either way — from bombs or sanctions.

Americans have become so accustomed to the concept of sanctions that the policy has become hum-drum and commonplace. Since the violence associated with sanctions is indirect and difficult to see, people don’t put them in the same category as bombs. But the reality is that sanctions, by virtue of their targeting foreign citizens for death, are every bit an act of war as dropping bombs on them.
Sanctions Are an Act of War – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Awesome!!

When did Jacob Hornberger become someone whose opinion I give a shit about?

If any Third World nations targeted by U.S. sanctions or embargoes were First World nations, there is little doubt that they would respond with a military counterattack against the United States.

He is pretty funny. He should do stand-up.

Most people have no idea what sanctions are or how they are applied. Just like the fake "embargo" on Cuba. All that means is that American companies can't export/sell/ship products there. Companies from around the world can though. The problem is that Cubans have no fucking money to buy anything.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Awesome!!

When did Jacob Hornberger become someone whose opinion I give a shit about?

If any Third World nations targeted by U.S. sanctions or embargoes were First World nations, there is little doubt that they would respond with a military counterattack against the United States.

He is pretty funny. He should do stand-up.

We sanction Russia and China I believe.

Where is the little doubted military response from Putin or Xi Jinping?

So much for Jacob Hornberger. Do quit your day job, Jacob.

 

[gipper]

If only you could learn.

Sanctions are a substitute for war. If you'd rather the US attack and overrun Cuba than apply sanctions
to force the Castro brothers to leave just say so.
If the people of Cub are able to effect change by their own actions that is the ideal solution.
But that remains to be seen.

I somehow think you and others would be whining no matter what solution we applied in a nation
run by authoritarian gangsters.

And that goes for N Korea, Iran, Venezula or any other nation you can think of. Sanctions are made horrible
weapons due to intransigent dictators.
The options are outright war or simply walking away from nations run by butchers and letting the
people there suffer and die at the hands of monstrous madmen anyway.

Think you can reason with N. Korea or force it to change through military might? I doubt it.

No. Sanctions are an act of war and are obviously ineffective in causing regime change. Don’t you think 60 years of sanctions on Cuba is proof enough? Sanctions harm the people.

 

[Rigby5]

You posted your opinion. I posted a PBS analysis. Keep whining.

A PBS analysis means nothing in the context of this issue.
I'm not "whining". I have nothing to whine about.

Again, sixty years of US policy towards Cuba went before whatever you think Trump did.

That's like saying the very last time you were slapped by your mother, not all the times before,
turned you into the pathetic clown you are. Now fuck off and stay fucked off!

Bullshit.

You posted your opinion. I posted a PBS analysis. Keep whining.

A PBS analysis means nothing in the context of this issue.
I'm not "whining". I have nothing to whine about.

Again, sixty years of US policy towards Cuba went before whatever you think Trump did.

That's like saying the very last time you were slapped by your mother, not all the times before,
turned you into the pathetic clown you now are. Now fuck off and stay fucked off!

Obama rolled back sanctions and made things easier for the communist regime in Cuba. So you lose again.

Yeah, Obama made things easier for his commie pals and friends.
Trump went back to the way it's been for decades.

I guess the new Cuban leader isn't doing so well. So what?
Trump isn't president any longer, genius.

So what? So President Trump's policies were influencing what's happening in Cuba right now. You're going round in circles now.

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?

The US is entirely at fault.
First of all, the US established the dictatorship of Batista that required the Cubans to rebel and install Castro originally.
Second is that the US threatens economic sanctions on any country trading with Cuba, which is illegal and destroys their economy.
Even the US economic sanctions against Cuba violate US law.

Nor is Cuba Marxist, and Cuba has never harmed or stated an intention to harm the US.

You're a lying dog-faced pony soldier.

Did the US install Batista as an evil dictator?

Yes, without a doubt.

{...
Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (/bəˈtiːstə/;[1] Spanish: [fulˈxensjo βaˈtista i salˈdiβaɾ]; born Rubén Zaldívar,[2] January 16, 1901 – August 6, 1973) 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 five-member "pentarchy" that functioned as the collective head of state. He maintained this control through a string of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was himself elected President of Cuba on a populist platform.[3][4] He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba[5] and served until 1944. After finishing his term, Batista moved to Florida, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. Facing certain electoral defeat, he led a military coup against President Carlos Prío Socarrás that pre-empted the election.[6]

Back in power and receiving financial, military and logistical support from the United States government,[7][8] Batista suspended the 1940 Constitution and revoked most political liberties, including the right to strike. He then aligned with the wealthiest landowners who owned the largest sugar plantations, and presided over a stagnating economy that widened the gap between rich and poor Cubans.[9] Eventually it reached the point where most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land.[10] As such, Batista's repressive government then began to systematically profit from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, by negotiating lucrative relationships both with the American Mafia, who controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana, and with large U.S.-based multinational companies who were awarded lucrative contracts.[9][11] To quell the growing discontent amongst the populace—which was subsequently displayed through frequent student riots and demonstrations—Batista established tighter censorship of the media, while also utilizing his Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities secret police to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions. These murders mounted in 1957, as socialist ideas became more influential. Many people were killed, with estimates ranging from hundreds to about 20,000 people killed.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

Catalyzing the resistance to such tactics, for two years (December 1956 – December 1958) Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement and other rebelling elements led an urban- and rural-based guerrilla uprising against Batista's government, which culminated in his eventual defeat by rebels under the command of Che Guevara at the Battle of Santa Clara on New Year's Day 1959. Batista immediately fled the island with an amassed personal fortune to the Dominican Republic, where strongman and previous military ally Rafael Trujillo held power. Batista eventually found political asylum in Oliveira Salazar's Portugal, where he first lived on the island of Madeira and then in Estoril. He was involved in business activities in Spain and was staying there in Guadalmina at the time of his death from a heart attack on August 6, 1973.[19]
...}

Fulgencio Batista - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Castro was very popular because he saved Cuba from Batista,

And then he was popular because he enslaved his people for the next 50+ years........

Castro's popularity shows how much better he was than Batista.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No. Sanctions are an act of war and are obviously ineffective in causing regime change. Don’t you think 60 years of sanctions on Cuba is proof enough? Sanctions harm the people.

So do authoritarian pieces of shit like the Castro brothers. Did you not read anything I posted.
Are thoughts unable to enter your head?

There are three options in dealing with Cuba.
A. Invade Cuba and wipe the gulag state off the map.
B. Simply sit back and let Castro make his people slaves and political prisoners in a gulag
nation and do nothing.
C. Apply sanctions and hope over time the Castros die or take their fortunes and seek refuge in
some other totalitarian nation.

So which would you choose?

 

[Rigby5]

Even the US economic sanctions against Cuba violate US law.

Which US law do sanctions violate?

First of all they violate the Geneva conventions against economic warfare, which became US law when Congress ratified them.
Second they violate the 1st amendment that guarantees freedom of political expression.
Third is that they violate the 4th and 5th amendment because the take away the ability to make money, without any compensation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Castro's popularity shows how much better he was than Batista.

No kidding. Did he ever get less than 95% of the vote?

He was super awesome!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even the US economic sanctions against Cuba violate US law.

Which US law do sanctions violate?

First of all they violate the Geneva conventions against economic warfare, which became US law when Congress ratified them.
Second they violate the 1st amendment that guarantees freedom of political expression.
Third is that they violate the 4th and 5th amendment because the take away the ability to make money, without any compensation.

First of all they violate the Geneva conventions against economic warfare, which became US law when Congress ratified them.

Right. So post it.

Second they violate the 1st amendment that guarantees freedom of political expression.

How?

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.

 

[K9Buck]

It was also the fault of the U.S. and Britain when Berlin's economy went down the drain due to 24/7 bombing.

 

[Rigby5]

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.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

It was also the fault of the U.S. and Britain when Berlin's economy went down the drain due to 24/7 bombing.

That was different because it was a declared and legal war, and the US and Britain were not trying to starve the population.
They were just unable to avoid civilian targets completely.
With the blockade of Cuba, we are only deliberately targeting civilians.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yeah it’s a fucking shocker the US didn’t team up with a communist nation and the Russians did.

Wrong.
Castro came to the US several times, hoping to get some help.
The US refused, forcing Cuba to go to the Soviets as the only means of getting any economic aid.
{...
This day in 1959, four months after leading a successful revolution in Cuba, Fidel Castro began an 11-day visit to the United States. His visit came at a time when tensions between his regime and the American government were rising steadily.

Castro neither requested nor accepted an official government invitation for his trip to Washington and New York. Rather, he came at the invitation of what was then called the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
...
President Dwight D. Eisenhower snubbed him, although the Cuban leader did meet with Vice President Richard Nixon and acting Secretary of State Christian Herter. Nixon later said he came away from the meeting with the conclusion that Castro was “either incredibly naive about communism or under communist discipline — my guess is the former.” On the other hand, after meeting with Castro, former Secretary of State Dean Acheson called him “the first democrat of Latin America.”

In a speech in New York to the Council on Foreign Relations, Castro said he would not beg the United States for economic assistance. He finally stormed out of the session, professing his anger at some of the questions raised by his audience.

Relations between the United States and Castro deteriorated rapidly after the April visit.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

So what? So President Trump's policies were influencing what's happening in Cuba right now. You're going round in circles now.

What is happening in Cuba right now? People that want the government there dissolved and their country
back? You want to blame Trump for the 60 years of authoritarian dictatorships in Cuba?

Are you nuts? Fuck off! This is over for you. Run along child.
Biden has lifted the embargo. The unrest in Cuba goes on. The problem is 62 years of authoritarian governments there.

The unrest in Cuba is recent, and the government of Cuba was historically popular.

 

[Rigby5]

Awesome!!

When did Jacob Hornberger become someone whose opinion I give a shit about?

If any Third World nations targeted by U.S. sanctions or embargoes were First World nations, there is little doubt that they would respond with a military counterattack against the United States.

He is pretty funny. He should do stand-up.

We sanction Russia and China I believe.

Where is the little doubted military response from Putin or Xi Jinping?

So much for Jacob Hornberger. Do quit your day job, Jacob.

The country with the biggest military can do what ever it wants, without much military risk, but it is still illegal and immoral what we do.

 

[Rigby5]

No. Sanctions are an act of war and are obviously ineffective in causing regime change. Don’t you think 60 years of sanctions on Cuba is proof enough? Sanctions harm the people.

So do authoritarian pieces of shit like the Castro brothers. Did you not read anything I posted.
Are thoughts unable to enter your head?

There are three options in dealing with Cuba.
A. Invade Cuba and wipe the gulag state off the map.
B. Simply sit back and let Castro make his people slaves and political prisoners in a gulag
nation and do nothing.
C. Apply sanctions and hope over time the Castros die or take their fortunes and seek refuge in
some other totalitarian nation.

So which would you choose?

A is illegal and immoral, and such a blatant war crime would not be tolerated by the rest of the world.
B is legal and moral, where it is up to the Cuban people.
C is illegal and immoral where you deliberately cause civilians starvation.