That makes it ok?

Iraq did not gas the Kurds and Irans last year either, but that was still used as a pretext for invasion.

How long after an atrocity is it ok to forget, if there is no change in the leadership?

<font color=orange>
Skunk, you might try reading this. Pay special attention to the paragraph that talks about how the EU has put on hold an Aid Package because of a crack down on human rights activists. Here I'll quote it for you so you don't have to go to the site and look for it.</font><font color=aqua>

As a result of Cuba’s repressive measures, the E.U. has put on hold an aid package brokered under the June 2000 Cotonou Agreement on trade, which was worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Cuba, and which would have provided Cuba with a badly needed injection of foreign capital. </font>

<font color=orange>Here's the site if you would like to read the rest of it!
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1068.cfm

And yet another website that details human rights abuses!
http://64.21.33.164/ref/dis/04010302.htm

As for the people loving it there, you should see the kinds of boats the people like to try to reach the US in. Most are really lucky if they make it half way. That's because they flee Cuba in anything that has even a remote chance of reaching the Keys. They are that desparate to leave. We see it on a regular basis on the Nightly News (You pick the network). When 10 to 30 people drown or become shark bait it usually makes the news here. Sounds like my kind of place! Maybe I'll move there... NOT!

When social injustices are addressed, there is often a degree of collateral damage in that process. My heart goes out to the innocents who lost out during the revolution and I can understand their hatred and anger at their loss. As one Iraqi child recently put it:
"They asked questions like: 'Where are you going? Where are you heading? Who is this?' Then I looked at my arms and I saw them gone. They said: 'It is a hopeless case, it's hopeless...
...I keep asking myself: 'Why are they bombing Iraqi people? What have we done to them?' I hoped that the pilot who hit our house would be burned as I am burned and my family were burned."
----Ali Abbas 'who lost both arms and suffered 60 percent burns in a U.S. bombing raid on Baghdad that killed his parents and 13 other family members'.

It's hard to see the big picture when you have personally lost out.

Stop banging your head on the desk - you'll get it in the end.

The United States is *THE* economic big-player in the Americas. When the United States murmours unhappiness *every* South American state (with the exception of Cuba), stands to attention and requests orders. They have to.
If the US tells one country that doing business with Cuba will hurt investment in their own country - it's a powerful argument.

Refusal could lead to the economic fall of their countries, and even, as shown many times before, to the involvement of the CIA destabilising that country. Legislation which prohibits the export of goods which may end up in Cuba amounts to an indirect embargo by the third country too.

So for example, if a Texas company sells computers to Brazil, and a Brazilian exporter sends them on to Cuba - it's against US law to continue supplying those computers: so Brazil would lose out on all imports regardless of whether they were intended for re-export or not. That gives the US an extraordinary amount of power over Cuba.

As a result, most of Cuba's trade falls outside the Americas (most with the EU in fact)- incurring the high transportation costs (and uncompetitiveness) that such an adverse trading enviroment causes.

Forget China, it isn't beligerent towards the United States. How about looking how the United States deals with the country that plays host to The University of Jihad. Now *that* is utterly bizarre behaviour, especially in the light of graduate comments like: ""I want to go back and fight the Americans...I can't wait anymore."

The Monroe doctrine is 180 years old, written in a time when South American states were several days/weeks travel away. China today is a few hours away, and capable of destroying half the US without even putting a single soldier on US soil or even a single warship out to sea.
I believe that US policy makers have moved on past the Monroe doctrine - or they wouldn't be bogged down in the Middle East today and the cold war with China would never happened.


European aid continues to flow to Cuba - and the EU continues to maintain trading arrangements with Cuba. Cuba simply refused to release three convicted hijackers (read: terrorists) in return for signing the additional agreement which would only have brought it political prestige rather than finanical return.

And by the way, it was the UK and the UK alone that voted against this trade agreement - utilising it's veto vote to prove to the EU that it's foreign policy is driven by the orders it receives from Washington.

As Sweden? put (paraphrased, because it's now hard to find the source), 'It would be hypocritical and counter-productive to block this trading agreement. Hypocritical because the grounds for blocking it are human rights abuses repeated by our US trading partners (closed trials and the death sentence, not to mention GM bay!) and our continued trade with the one-party state of China. Counter-productive because these measures would hurt the Cuban populace at large rather than invoke any democratic reform.'


The EU also recieves people dying by the boat-load, desparately trying to reach its shores in search of an economically better life too. Cubans however, upon reaching the US shore have an automatic right to stay (unlike in the EU) and is located extremely close to the US - that provides enormous pulling power.

Amazing how the embargo inspires people to swim through shark infested waters eh?

[ 10-14-2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

You omit to mention the Helms-Burton Act. Foreign companies who do business with Cuba risk sanctions including losing the right to trade with the USA. In fact, if an individual does business legally with Cuba in his own country he can be arrested and prosecuted if he subsequently enters the USA. I know of no other law where this applies.

[ 10-14-2003, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

Yes - conditions in Cuba suck when compared with the USA, but conditions in Cuba do not suck when compared with conditions in Cuba before 1958 for the vast majority of people.

Which was my point and the point of several others Timber. If we engage Cuba rather than persecute it, maybe when the dictator dies the USA will be in a better position to influence it for the better. I guess none of us here are happy with China and its lack of democracy and its record of brutal oppression. But we can see real progress being made. After 40 years of US policy failure on Cuba maybe, just maybe, it is time for a different method?

You omit to mention the Helms-Burton Act. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=orange>You forget that the reason the Helms-Burton Act was enacted.
Cuba shot down four civilian aircraft belonging to Brothers to the Rescue, a Cuban excile group known for its rescues of Cuban refugees and for dropping anti-Castro leaflets in Cuba. Clinton signed the legislation in question. I might add that the Brothers to the Rescue planes were NOT over Cuban waters at the time, but in international waters.

As far as Baucus's wish to end the US Embargo on Cuba, the one and only reason he wants to do so is to sell Montana Wheat to Cuba. The very same reason we do not slam the door on China (not that we could any way now). It's all for the money as Rokken says. Otherwise I doubt Senator Baucus would care what goes on in Cuba. Don't get to sentimental for old Max. It ain't cause he's got a kind heart or anything (not to say that he doesn't [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Fraid not Sir T. The legislation was introduced well before the incident in question, in 1994 or 1995. That incident was indeed the catalyst for Clinton to sign it. The Helms-Burton Act was introduced to protect the rights of US citizens to sue foreign nationals in the US courts for money made from dealings with 'US properties' in Cuba.

Clinton signed it in 1996. Wasn't that an election year?

Well, considering what one of their own pilots had to say:
[We] constantly violated civil aeronautics regulations. I can cite some examples for you Brothers to the Rescue threw smoke bombs of different day time and night time types from the windows of the planes, including there were times when it struck the propeller. There are structural violations In the airplane like the windows the doors. low altitude flights of less than 50 feet when provisions were thrown out, etc.. <u>false reports of location during flights when at a given moment they were trying to trick the Air controllers. Also alteration of flight plans with flight planned for specific points and detours to Cuban national territory which is the most frequent of these, that is, a flight was planned for the Bahamas with a specific route and the flight was totally altered to deceive the Boyeros Flight Tower.</u>
One might forgive the Cuban government if they got the *mis-reported* position wrong, and allow room for suspicion that the pilots were lying about their exact location when they were first shot at.

Interestingly enough, had the pilots done the same thing today over US airspace, they would have quicly found themselves on the wrong end of a one hundred year sentence for 'terrorism'...

<font color=orange>While you are correct that it was introduced prior to the shoot down, It didn't have snowballs chance in hell of passing prior to that. It didn't have the necessary votes in Congress and Clinton had said he would veto Helms-Burton should it reach his desk. After the shoot down, support for the bill surged and it was quickly passed by Congress and Clinton reversed himself and signed the bill. It isn't as cut and dried as you make it seem. Just because a bill is introduced doesn't mean it becomes law.

I wish to add that up until the summer of 2001 both Clinton and Bush suspended the provision allowing lawsuits to proceed against companies outside of the United States, thereby effectively gutting the bill for all but US companies. I have to assume that the provision is still suspended, since most of Europe and Canada were still trading with Cuba up to the point that Cuba started throwing all it Human Righs Activists in jail, for up to 20 years this past winter. Since then I am uncertian what other countries trade relations with Cuba are. Much of what I have researched over the internet seems to indicate that some of that trade has been suspended by the powers that be.