Should the US lift the embargo on Cuba?

[XOKCowboy]

Poll question: Should the US lift the embargo on Cuba?

I'm just putting the question out there and would welcome replies on why you feel that way.

[XOKCowboy]

1. I'll reply first...

I think it's a relic of the Cold War and should be lifted. We can travel almost anywhere in the world on a US Passport but not to a little island 90 miles off of our coast. Nothing in 40 or so years indicates that they've got any sort of weaponry aimed at us. The people of Cuba would (and already do) welcome our tourist dollars.

Just what are we proving or accomplishing with this embargo?

[denem]

2. Is water wet?

There are better ways to keep Florida blue.

[Exilednight]

3. The embargo is a complete joke, and besides ...........

I have a really hard time finding a good cigar these days.

[XOKCowboy]

20. I hear that the diving is great also

Why do we spend so much time and money keeping people from bringing Cubanos into the United States? Idiocy.

[Peace Patriot]

4. YES! And compensate them for financial losses and deaths!

What has Cuba done, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, to harm the U.S.?

The answer is NOTHING!!!

But we have harmed them! For one thing, we are harboring the CIA terrorist who bombed a Cuban passenger airliner (and later bragged about it), in which some 70 people were blown to bits, and is wanted in Venezuela for these murders, since many of them were Venezuelans. For another, the embargo has cost many children's and other peoples' lives because proper medicines and medical equipment cannot be obtained. It has also cost the lives of people lost at sea from risky trips to leave Cuba for the U.S., since there is no regularized visa process to which someone can even apply. True, a visa may be denied, but, with the embargo, a visa is not even possible. Serious economic harm has also been inflicted. No ship that stops in Cuba can then enter a U.S. port. This severely restricts trade and Cuba's ability to obtain not only medical goods but also machinery, machine parts and other necessities.

Cuba was only a threat to us once--and Cuba did not harm to us at that time. In 1962, Cuba, which was a close ally of Soviet Russia, permitted Russian missiles to be placed on Cuban soil. The reason Russia's leader Krushchev did this was that the U.S. had placed missiles in Turkey right on Russia's border. No missiles were fired from Cuba, and from what we have learned later of both Krushchev and Castro, it is extremely unlikely--impossible, really--that they ever would have used them offensively. Nevertheless, it was a crisis for the U.S., under JFK, who demanded that the missiles be removed. After a very tense couple of days, with the U.S. Joint Chiefs urging an all-out nuclear strike on Russia and Cuba, to JFK, JFK brokered a backchannel deal with Krushchev, in which Krushchev removed the missiles from Cuba, in exchange for JFK later removing the U.S. missiles from Turkey. Also, as a face-saving measure for JFK, the embargo of Cuba (which was to prevent Soviet delivery of missiles) was continued. If JFK had lived, the Cuben embargo surely would have been lifted in the later 1960s--for JFK contined the backchannels to Krushchev and Castro (to avoid his own Joint Chiefs and the CIA), and was intending to END the Cold War altogether, including all the proxy wars. JFK had engineered neutral status for Laso, to prevent a proxy war from developing there. And he was trying to undo the CIA's war plans in Vietnam, when the CIA assassinated him.* He surely would have gone on with his peace plan, had he lived, and dismantled the U.S. military presence in Vietnam (he had started the process), and lifted the embargo on Cuba and normalized relations. (In his backchannel to Castro, he had told Castro that he understood why Castro and the other revolutionaries had overthrown the heinous Batista dictatorship.)

The Joint Chiefs were extremely unhappy that JFK wouldn't let them nuke Russia. They thought they could "win" such a war, with "only" 300,000 American casualties. JFK thought they were insane. The CIA was monitoring JFK's backchannels, found out about the peace initatives, and killed him. LBJ agreed with JFK about the madness of nuclear war, but he was not against the Cold War. Two days after JFK was killed, LBJ said, quote unquote, "Now they can have their war" (meaning the Joint Chiefs and Vietnam).

Cuba has suffered all this time for making a mistake, with its powerful ally, Soviet Russia, and for being afraid of the U.S. (The CIA had invaded Cuba early in JFK's presidency, against JFK's wishes. The CIA had lied to JFK that there was support for that invasion within Cuba, and U.S. troops and planes would not be needed. But there was no such local support; the CIA tried to blackmail JFK to send troops and planes; JFK refused; and the mission failed. JFK then fired the CIA Director and said that he would like to "smash the CIA into a thousand pieces." This was an additional motive for assassinating him. Cuba meanwhile had no way of knowing, in 1961-early 1962, that the U.S. wouldn't try another invasion. That is why Castro let Russia install missiles in Cuba.)

The embargo of Cuba makes no sense whatever now--and hasn't for more than 30 years--and certainly since the demise of the Soviet Union (mid-1980s). The only reason it has been maintained is the political pressure and wealth of the anti-Castro mafia in Miami--wealth enhanced by millions of dollars in U.S. grants and subsidies--who want to restore rightwing rule in Cuba and various nightclub/gambling and other mob enterprises. This rightwing lobby group controls U.S. policy on Cuba, and, indeed, on all of Latin America. They are the political heirs of the heinous Batista dictatorship.

Virtually every country in Latin America wants the Cuban embargo lifted. Many included this request in their messages of congratulations to President Obama on his inauguration. The new South American 'common market'--UNASUR--invited Cuba to become a member.


------------

*(Highly recommended: "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters," by James Douglass.)

[Thothmes]

5. a good example of JFKs weakness as a President

He appointed the JCS. They carry out his orders. If they do not it is his obligation to relieve them of their duty. He did not do that. he let JCS and CIA dicates U.S. Policy. He was a helpless puppet unfiting of stiting in the oval office. Is this the point that you are trying to make?

[Peace Patriot]

12. Sorry, I don't agree. I think he was extraordinarily courageous to even be able to

think outside of the "Cold War" context in that era. His entire Joint Chiefs, the CIA operating secretly behind his back, and the rest of the "military industrial complex" (war profiteers), were entirely against him. He had only one option, and that was to get the people on his side, to make the bold moves that he was contemplating. He was planning to do that, in the 1964 campaign--to lay a major peace plan before the people. He thought the people would be for it, and I'm sure he was right. After he was killed, and LBJ ran for president in 1964, LBJ ran as "the peace candidate" (painting Barry Goldwater as a warmonger and trigger-happy). LBJ won the biggest presidential victory in history, I believe--or way up there. Something like 60% of the vote. The people WANTED PEACE. Clearly. Of course, LBJ was baldface lying. But still, JFK was right. If he had had the chance to put it before the people, he would have won big (his first vote was a real squeaker), and that mandate would have enabled him to do something like fire the entire Joint Chiefs. I don't know if you lived through that era, but meager little peace things like selling wheat to Russia (during a famine in Russia) were extremely controversial--in the establishment press (a lot of which was CIA infiltrated). A simple humanitarian gesture. Didn't I make this clear: THEY WANTED TO DESTROY RUSSIA WITH NUCLEAR MISSILES. THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD 'WIN' IT! And if he had fired them all, very likely the second rank down would have held the same position. He had to get the public behind it, and he had to do a lot of persuasion and education--to go up against such powers.

This is the last moment in our history when we really had a democracy. The CIA and the war profiteers have been running the show ever since. This is why they killed him. James Douglass makes an overwhelming case for it. Read the book and then come back and tell me that JFK was 'weak' and 'a helpless puppet.' He is a dead man, is what he is--because he was not weak and because he refused to be their puppet.

[Thothmes]

13. These men held their posts at his discretion

He appointed them. He does not need an electorial landslide to give him the power to sack JCA. He as that authority under the constitution. Does not speak highly of his ability as a manager. Harry Truman did not seem to have any problem sacking recalcitrant generals(very popular ones )that would not carry out his policy.

[Peace Patriot]

17. Having the authority is not the same as having the power.

Truman was president during a different era. In fact, Douglass, in his book, published a little known op-ed by Truman shortly after JFK's assassination (1963), in which he basically says that the CIA has gotten out of control and should be dismantled. And Ike warned the country at the end of his term (1960) of the anti-democratic power of the "military-industrial complex." So here are two presidents who were very worried about the war profiteers during JFK's era, the early '60s.

You are very much underestimating the power of our secret government, and of the MIC, which had grown exponentially over the length of the Cold War period, from the Korean War through the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is what Ike was warning about. This is what Truman was lamenting, after the fact. The president is enveloped in small bubble of warriors and war profiteers, with this powerful secret organization, the CIA, operating often on its own initiative. Truman, who created the CIA, says, in his op-ed, that he never meant it to be this way. It was to be an intelligence aid to the president, not a manufacturer of wars and player of dirty tricks. Certainly not an independent branch of government--and a secret one. I don't have the op-ed in front of me, and can't quote it exactly, but that's the gist of it. Kennedy was in the process of finding out how powerful, and how devious, the CIA was. Within his administration, he only had Bobby as an ally. That's it. McNamara was at least loyal and followed JFK's orders, but he often didn't agree with him. (And, as we know, McNamara became a major player in the mass slaughter--and war profiteer boondoggle--that Vietnam turned into.) The rest of them were opposed to Kennedy's policies, bent on war, and often did not carry out his orders. And there is no reason to believe that the second tier of generals would have been any different, had JFK tried to fire the lot. He simply did not have the power, or the network he needed, for instance, within the military, to counter CIA and war profiteer opposition. He had only been president two and a half years, when all this came to a head. He had just experienced facing Armageddon, in the Cuban Missile Crisis--something no president had ever faced before. He was struggling to see out of this situation. And every meeting he would hear, "Nuke 'em!"

We were just barely out of the McCarthyite period, also. "Weakness" was NOT nuking an entire country, and millions and millions of people, including our own! THAT was how "weakness" was defined--not killing commies.

One other thing: Communications were a lot slower in those days. It took quite a bit of time for JFK to realize that his own ambassador in Vietnam was not following his orders. That ambassador was in league with the CIA, and they were determined to create a war in Vietnam. But JFK didn't know half of what the CIA was doing there. They were operating independently. And THAT was the problem, not JFK being "weak." We can gainsay JFK's decisions--and he certainly made mistakes--and we can cry out in frustration at what he didn't know--but that is with hindsight. This man prevented the END of planet earth--which is what would have happened in a nuclear exchange between the U.S. and Russia--against the angry insistence of the Joint Chiefs that he must nuke Russia and destroy it, and take 300,000 casualties here. They had their toys and they wanted to use them! They thought they had the advantage, and they wanted to take it. And they were unanimous. He refused--and then began the difficult process of trying to think beyond the Cold War, to nuclear disarmanent and peace. He negotiated the first nuclear test ban treaty--also against the will and against the manueverings of the military and the CIA. You can call him a lot of things, but "weak" is not one of them. He had a weak mandate from the 1960 election (an election he barely won, talking the standard Cold War lines). He was not a weak man. He was an amazing man, actually--and one with the intellectual power and emotional steadiness to try to find our way out of the Cold War. He stared them down on armageddon. He said no to their war on Cuba. He said no to the war they wanted in Laos. He was trying to find out what they were up to in Vietnam, because it was so devious. And they killed him for it.

[Thothmes]

23. Again, the President is responsible for the actions of those

people that he places in power. If he cannot control them, If he does not know what they are doing, then I question that man's ability as President.
He went to great lengths to ensure that the quid pro quo with the Russians over our missles in Turkey was not exposed to the general public. He raised
the troop level in Vietnam from around 600 when he took office to 16,000 in less and three years. He might have decided to withdraw from Vietnam before his death, but he would make sure that didnt happen before the Nov 64 elections. That way he would not look weak on Communism. Essentially exchanging the lives of American soldiers for his political benefit. A man whose Presidency was bought and paid for by his father. A man whose House and Senate seats were bought and paid for by his father, a man whose Navy commission was obtained for him by his father. I do not worship at the hallowed halls of Camelot. Without Joe's fortune, wih his numerous extra-maritial affairs, and his reliance on medications for his back injuries, this man would never have been elected President of the United States.

[WinkyDink]

15. I think the fact he WASN'T a "puppet" (wanting to "scatter the CIA to the 4 winds") got him KILLED.

[Thothmes]

24. The only groups that have not been identified

has having conspired to assissinate the President was the Boy Scouts of America and the Women's Christian Temprance Union. It was the Communist Cubans,
it was the Cuban Americans, it was the CIA, it was the JCS, it was the Mafia, it was the FBI, it was LBJ.

[XOKCowboy]

11. I agree..

and thanks for the book reference. I'll pick it up.

[TahitiNut]

6. Where's the "d'oh" choice?

:dunce:

[Mr. Sparkle]

7. no offense, but what a stupid question !

I cant imagine one reason to keep it. After 40 years what do people think that will happen? just 2 more and they are bound to crumble ??

[Vogon_Glory]

8. Yes, But With the Department of Commerce Saying Caveat Venditor

Yes, I favor lifting the trade embargo with Cuba, although I'm not inclined to let the US government interpose itself between the Cuban government and lawsuits filed by Cuban emigres and their descendants. However, I also favor the US Department of Commerce regularly issuing a 'caveat venditor' warning for US businesses wishing to deal with the island. The Havana government has earned a reputation for forcing its foreign business partners to hand over their operations at a sharp loss if the Cuban powers-that-be decide that they can run it more profitably themselves or if someone spots some Marxist-Leninist ideological boojum they don't like.

[XOKCowboy]

9. OK pretty much unanimous and a stupid question...

So the next stupid question is why is it still in place?

[JayMusgrove]

10. So far it's unanimous n/t

[WinkyDink]

14. So ridiculously, shamefully overdue. Oh, wait; they aren't CHINESE Communists.

[neverforget]

16. a resounding YES!

[Better Believe It]

18. K & R

[BuyingThyme]

19. There really IS something we all can agree on.

[damonm]

21. Oh, HELL no...

It's working SO WELL...those rotten commie bastards are gonna break any time now!
Do I really need this?
:sarcasm:

[Alexander]

22. DU so far is unanimous on this issue.

Hopefully an end to the embargo is on the horizon.