The Cuba Embargo was started in 1960.

Barack Obama was born in 1961.

So there are some different sets of 'they' around.

I didn't think it was necessary to be more specific in my post but I was wrong. By 'they' I meant the US government.

After how much time can an organization's past actions cease to be attributable to its current members? Why not also just blame the current human race for everything bad done by humans >100 years ago?

Isn't one of the obvious factors that different people are making these decisions?

There's an awful lot of people in Washington that are unhappy with the softer approach to Cuba.

Totally.

Every other country in the world was free to trade with Cuba. Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo. Communism failed everywhere else, why would Cuba have been any different but for the embargo?

Cuba is a bit more complex than that.

- It's true Cuba is a disaster in some aspects, regardless of the embargo. You have a point there.

- On the other hand, it's hard to argue some disasters were made even worse by the embargo.

- Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education.

Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster. This too is part of the lesson.

>Finally, let's not forget Cuba immediately before Communism was an even worse disaster.

This is just completely false. Cuba was by no means a democratic or rich country, but there was a growing middle class and plenty of economic success. It was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. Here's a good article from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/peopleevents/e_precastro...

>Some aspects of Cuba are a success, like its approach to universal & free health care and education.

This is another myth that's been debunked. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuba/health-myth.htm . It's a National Review article, so they obviously have their own biases, but most of the pro-Cuban pieces rely almost exclusively on Cuba's self-reported WHO statistics, which are obviously unreliable.

Um, the PBS link you posted states Cuba had a very troubled history, with a complex history of assassinated leaders, repression, inequality, illiteracy, and widespread corruption. Finally there's Batista, who after an initially progressive government, ended up conducting a coup d'etat which "destroyed the democratic republic he had brought into existence" [sic].

Whether the right next step was Communism or not, the country at that point was an unmitigated disaster.

The article from the conservative National Review is, like you say, biased. There is truth to it and there is opinion.

Your first paragraph is totally right, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. Batista was an evil man, and many older Cuban-Americans today will admit that they originally supported the revolution because of that. But you're totally wrong to say that things were worse under Batista than under Castro. There's a great movie, The Lost City, that captures this whole tragedy: the evil of Batista's regime, the competing revolutionary movements, Castro's promises that he wasn't a communist, his victory and ensuing mass executions, lifelong exile in America for some--most of whom left Cuba with nothing but the clothes on their backs--and a life robbed of freedom and opportunity for the rest.

As far as dictatorships go, they're all terrible scourges on mankind. But if I had to choose to live under a dictator like Pinochet or Batista, vs a dictator like Stalin or Castro, I'd choose Pinochet and Batista every time. Communism is uniquely destructive of a nation's culture and productivity. For example, in communist Cuba, you don't choose a job because it pays more. You choose a job based on what opportunities to steal it gives you. Cheating and stealing is the main way to get ahead, or even to meet your needs, in such a society. Few things could be as destructive to a people.

Well, if you'd prefer Pinochet there's little left to say on my part. Pinochet was a monster, a torturer and a traitor to his country, and along with many murderous dictatorships in South America (like in my country, Argentina) enacted the infamous "Plan Condor" for the assassination of dissenters, as well as the illegal detention and forced disappearance of students and political opponents. It's really hard to come up with a more brutal and despicable dictatorship in South America than his.

We share no common ground on which to continue this discussion.

Your response here is intellectually dishonest. Of course Pinochet was bad, and I was very clear about that. My point is that Allende was and would have been worse. Allende was so bad that the Chilean Supreme Court and Congress called for his forcible removal from power by the military. He was ignoring court orders and ruling by diktat. He was turning Chile into Cuba and was close allies with Castro. Today, one country is extremely wealthy and stable, and had a peaceful transition to democracy. The other is still a totalitarian hell hole. You might come to a different conclusion, but moral indignation is unwarranted.

No, what you're saying is terrible.

Allende was, good or bad (I think more good than bad) a democratically elected president. In contrast, Pinochet was a brutal dictator who came to power through a coup d'etat and enforced his rule via bloodshed, murder and repression of dissidents, students and anyone he didn't like; this included a clandestine plan of cooperation between intelligence agencies of neighboring dictatorships to kidnap and murder dissidents abroad (so that if you were a Chilean dissident living in Argentina, "Plan Condor" ensured you'd be captured and/or murdered there).

There is no possible comparison between Allende and Pinochet.

Being "close allies with Castro" isn't a crime, and to think so reeks of ideological persecution -- the very thing you accuse Cuba of! In democracy, if you don't like a president you wait for your turn to vote a different one. If the president does something grossly illegal, there are legal procedures to remove him from power, like impeachment.

Removal by military force, assassinations and political repression IS NOT AN OPTION IN DEMOCRACY. No matter how allegedly ruinous a government is removal by military force IS NOT AN OPTION. That's not how democracy works! There is no possible crime a democratically elected president can commit that justifies a military coup, the banning of all political parties and clandestine torture centers. Nothing.

At this point you might tell me that you don't think democracy is above all possible problems, that some emergencies may justify suspending the rule of law... but in that case, your criticisms of Cuba and Fidel ring very hollow. You'd be on very shaky ground.

You disgust me. We have nothing in common. I'm stopping this discussion now.

You realize that Hitler was elected, right? Democracy is not the be all and end all. It's great because of all of the wonderful things it has done for us. Self-representation is a good in itself, but not greater than human prosperity and freedom. And loyal opposition only works when everyone agrees on the sanctity of the system. I believe in liberal democracy, where the sovereignty of the people is limited by institutions like a constitutional court and a general separation of powers. An elected dictatorship (especially one like Allende's, elected on a slim plurality) has no legitimacy in my eyes.

Allende had effectively made himself dictator by ignoring the Congress and the Supreme Court. That doesn't justify Pinochet creating a military junta after the coup, and it certainly didn't justify his political death squads. But again, I'd rather live under a traditional dictatorship, that seeks to preserve society's structure and institutions, than a Communist dictatorship that has social and economic upheaval (destruction in practice) as its agenda. It's not a choice I want to ever be in a position to make. But man has lived and prospered under unfree governments throughout history. Man has never prospered under Communism.

It's disappointing that someone who's clearly intelligent can't have an intellectual disagreement without attacking the other person's moral integrity. Personally, I'll take it as badge of honor to be called 'disgusting' by someone who defends Castro and Allende and their ilk.

This conversation is absurd.

Hitler was nothing at all like Allende; the führer was elected but his rule wasn't a democracy and nobody in his right mind would call him democratic. And I'm pretty sure free elections weren't a possibility under Nazism.

Pinochet -- a man who had nothing but disregard for the "freedom" you claim to admire -- was a monster that kidnapped, tortured, murdered and committed crimes against humanity, and then in his later years shielded himself under diplomatic immunity to avoid prosecution. Yet you prefer him -- a mass murderer, unlike Allende -- because "man has never prospered under Communism". I'm sure the people Pinochet ordered tortured and killed were happy that this was done in the name of prosperity.

I strongly recommend you abandon the "let's say Pinochet wasn't so bad" strategy because it's beyond wrong and ridiculous. Just pick any other strategy, but not this one. Also, don't compare flawed but democratic governments to Hitler.

It's cool that you've shown your true colors and don't consider democracy to be "the be all and end all". Unfortunately, this undermines your criticism of Cuba and pretty much everything you say. You lose the right to criticize Cuba because it's a dictatorship or because it suppresses dissidents or because it doesn't respect the rule of law, because Pinochet did all of this and way worse, but you still "prefer him".

>Hitler was nothing at all like Allende; the fuhrer was elected but his rule wasn't a democracy and nobody in his right mind would call him democratic.

Allende's regime was not democratic. He was ruling by diktat and ignoring court rulings and acts of congress. That's textbook dictatorship.

>I strongly recommend you abandon the "let's say Pinochet wasn't so bad" strategy because it's beyond wrong and ridiculous. Just pick any other strategy, but not this one. Also, don't compare flawed but democratic governments to Hitler.

What's ridiculous is that you're either unwilling or unable to engage with the concept of a choice between evils. You keep dishonestly portraying my argument as a defense of Pinochet. It is no such thing. Indeed, I would have liked to see Pinochet executed for his crimes, including not handing power back to the democratic institutions after ejecting the dictator. He was still the better of these two evils.

>It's cool that you've shown your true colors and don't consider democracy to be "the be all and end all". Unfortunately, this undermines your criticism of Cuba and pretty much everything you say. You lose the right to criticize Cuba because it's a dictatorship or because it suppresses dissidents or because it doesn't respect the rule of law, because Pinochet did all of this and way worse, but you "prefer him".

Do you really think that democracy is the be all and end all? So you would have no problem with genocide as long as a majority approved of it? I'd love to see you try to defend this absurd stance.

No, Allende's wasn't a dictatorship. There was an institutional crisis and the preparation of a coup in progress (and it's no conspiracy theory by now, given all the documentation available, that the CIA was involved in preparing the groundwork for the coup), and Allende was in open conflict with Congress. That's pretty serious and everyone would agree Chile was in serious crisis, but it's not "textbook dictatorship".

You know what is a textbook dictatorship, one that 100% of the world agrees was a dictatorship, though? Pinochet's. And you claim to prefer him.

It's hilarious because every single crime you claim Allende committed, Pinochet actually committed and worse. No-one elected Pinochet, but people -- regardless how "flimsy" was the majority -- elected Allende. Allende didn't suspend constitutional rights, Pinochet did. You could outvote Allende in open elections, but you couldn't do that to Pinochet, because he didn't hold elections. You claim Allende overruled Congress, but guess who DISSOLVED Congress? Pinochet. Torture under Pinochet's rule was stomach-churning: rape, bone-crushing and mutilation of genitals were par for the course... you really, really need to review who you claim to prefer.

In the "choice of two evils" (your words), you choose the worst, plain and simple.

Had Allende been allowed to have his way, Chile would probably be like Cuba today, poor, miserable, and enslaved, rather than the richest and most stable country in the region. Chile under Allende also would have been another foothold for the Soviets in the Western hemisphere.

Castro didn't come out as a totalitarian communist on the morning after the revolution. He first methodically solidified his power and only showed his true colors when he knew his position was safe. There's every reason to believe that Allende was following the same playbook.

Communism failed everywhere... BUT most of those countries have started down the path to a more market driven economy primarily through external trade... its weird to have trade with USSR and China but not allow trade with Cuba at this time.

The embargo was never about communism itself, it was a response to the seizure of assets owned by Americans without compensation. I think these other countries either didn't do this, or at least didn't do it as much.

You're drawing a false dichotomy. Capitalism is good for a country regardless of trade arrangements. It's even better when you have trading partners, but you don't need them to reap massive benefits from a free market system.

Capitalism is really bad if you're trying to hold onto your dictatorship.

Cuba "opened up" economically before, in the 90s. They were under a lot of internal pressure after the collapse of their sponsor, the USSR. As soon as the economy recovered enough to secure the stability of Castro's ruling mafia (party officials, military, etc.), he reversed the market reforms and ratcheted up repression.

> Cuba is a disaster because of Communism, not the US embargo.

Lifting the embargo will make that even more obvious to those who still don't get it.

Every other country was free to trade with them?

lol?

You do realize the US banned any companies from trading with the US if they had traded with Cuba before?

And used this against Iran, too?

That's very deceptive. That restriction was applied to US companies' foreign subsidiaries in 1992, and to all foreign companies in 1995. Castro came to power in 1959. Thirty-three years of economic catastrophe is enough to make my point.

What's that communism thing you talk about anyway? Doesn't sound like the Marx I read.

Also, please, define "disaster".

Since by my knowledge, Cuba is neither a disaster, nor a communist country...

Nobody has implemented Communism or Capitalism exactly as they are defined in their textbooks. The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice.

The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people.

We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point.

>The difference between the two systems is that one of them, even when implemented incorrectly, still works in practice.

No, the difference between them is everything but that. IMHO Communism is more just, intelligent and advanced way of doing things... Saying that Capitalism "works" is just untrue, though it would be good to know what are your reasons to think that, and what news do you read? What's a socio-economic system that "works" for you?

>The other one is an intellectual's dream that caused pain and suffering for millions of people.

"An intellectual's dream", seriously? For starters it is not just one intellectual but lots of the brightest sociological minds on history, and also, it's not a dream, the idea of communism has all the backing of centuries of sociological development and science, and it's a very plausible evolution to the non-ever-working capitalism.

>We should drop the "no true Scotsman" for Communism, at this point.

Agree. My point though, is that we can't keep stigmatizing communism and misusing the term because of poor knowledge or out-of-space-time implementations.