Wish I had more time, but here's some Wiki info on the embargo from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_CubaFirst,Iused the word "blockade" in part because the United States hasmadegreat efforts to pressure other countries into cutting off the flowoffunds and good into Cuba. At that point, it was no longer simply aU.S.embargo. Still, it was an unfortunate choice of words. It'snottechnically a blockade.
The [b style="font-weight: bold;"]United States embargo against Cuba[/b]
(described in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba" title="Cuba"]Cuba[/a]
as [b style="font-weight: bold;"]el bloqueo[/b]
, [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language" title="Spanish language"]Spanish[/a]
for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo" title="Embargo"]embargo[/a]
imposed on [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba" title="Cuba"]Cuba[/a]
by the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States"]United States[/a]
on [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_7" title="February 7"]February 7[/a]
, [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962" title="1962"]1962[/a]
. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006" title="2006"]As of 2006[/a]
, the embargo is still in effect, making it one of the most enduring [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade" title="Trade"]trade[/a]
embargoes in modern history. It remains an extremely controversial issue worldwide, with the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly" title="UN General Assembly"]General Assembly[/a]
of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations" title="United Nations"]United Nations[/a]
condemning it for the 14th time in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005" title="2005"]2005[/a]
by a large margin.
The embargo has been the source of almost unanimous international criticism. Annual votes in the United Nations [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly" title="United Nations General Assembly"]General Assembly[/a]
that call on the U.S. to lift its sanctions pass with exceptionally large margins (173 to 3 in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002" title="2002"]2002[/a]
; 179 to 4 in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004"]2004[/a]
). In the 2004 vote, only the U.S., [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel" title="Israel"]Israel[/a]
, the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands" title="Marshall Islands"]Marshall Islands[/a]
, and [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau" title="Palau"]Palau[/a]
voted against the resolution (with [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia" title="Federated States of Micronesia"]Federated States of Micronesia[/a]
abstaining).[p style="font-weight: bold;"]The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European" title="European"]European[/a]governmentsinparticular who resent the extraterritorial pretensionsof a pieceoflegislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporationsandnon-U.S.investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons" title="Canadian House of Commons"]Canadian House of Commons[/a], Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey-Milliken_Bill" title="Godfrey-Milliken Bill"]Godfrey-Milliken Bill[/a] which called for the return of property of [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalists" title="United Empire Loyalists"]United Empire Loyalists[/a] seized by the American government as a result of the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution" title="American Revolution"]American Revolution[/a] (the bill never became law). Furthermore, the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament" title="European Parliament"]European Parliament[/a]in1996passed a law making it illegal for all EU citizens toobeytheHelms-Burton act. This EU law was clearly more symbolicthananythingelse, but virtually eliminated any weight the act had overEUcitizens.The [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council" title="European Council"]European Council[/a]:[/p][dl style="font-weight: bold;"][dd]
whilereaffirmingits concern to promote democratic reform inCuba, recalledthe deepconcern expressed by the European Council overtheextraterritorialeffects of the "Cuban Liberty and DemocraticSolidarity(Libertad) Act"adopted by the United States and similarpendinglegislation regardingIran and Libya. It noted thewidespreadinternational objections to thislegislation. It called uponPresidentClinton to waive the provisions ofTitle III and expressedseriousconcern at the measures already taken toimplement Title IV ofthe Act.The Council identified a range of measureswhich could bedeployed bythe EU in response to the damage to theinterests of EUcompaniesresulting from the implementation of the Act.Among these arethefollowing:[ol][li]
a move to a WTO dispute settlement panel;[/li][li]
changes in the procedures governing entry by representatives of US companies to EU Member States;[/li][li]
the use/introduction of legislation within the EU to neutralize the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation;[/li][li]
the establishment of a watch list of US companies filing Title III actions.[/li][/ol][/dd][/dl][p style="font-weight: bold;"]Religiousleadersoppose the embargo for a variety of reasons,includinghumanitarian andeconomic hardships the embargo imposes onCubans. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II" title="Pope John Paul II"]Pope John Paul II[/a] called for the end to the embargo during his [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979" title="1979"]1979[/a] pastoral visit to [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico" title="Mexico"]Mexico[/a], and again during his [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998" title="1998"]1998[/a] visit to Cuba. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Bartholomew_I" title="Patriarch Bartholomew I"]Patriarch Bartholomew I[/a] called the embargo a "historic mistake" while visiting the island on [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_25" title="January 25"]January 25[/a], [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004" title="2004"]2004[/a]. United States religious leaders have also opposed the embargo. A joint letter in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998" title="1998"]1998[/a] from the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciples_of_Christ" title="Disciples of Christ"]Disciples of Christ[/a] and the [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ" title="United Church of Christ"]United Church of Christ[/a] to the U.S. Senate called for the easing of economic restrictions against Cuba. Rev. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Jackson" title="Jesse Jackson"]Jesse Jackson[/a], Rev. [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton" title="Al Sharpton"]Al Sharpton[/a], and Minister [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan" title="Louis Farrakhan"]Louis Farrakhan[/a] have also publicly opposed the embargo. On [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15" title="May 15"]May 15[/a], [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002" title="2002"]2002[/a] former President [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter" title="Jimmy Carter"]Jimmy Carter[/a] spoke in [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havana" title="Havana"]Havana[/a],callingforan end to the embargo, saying "Our two nations have beentrapped inadestructive state of belligerence for 42 years, and it istime for ustochange our relationship."[/p]
Check out the article for some oftheeffects of the embargo, which were MUCH more severe after theSovietsfell, but are still significant. For instance, although theCuban expatcommunity in the United States wants Castro gone, even theyare upset bythe fact that they can't send gifts to their own relatives(can you giveme other examples of terrible dictatorships around theworld whereAmerican's can't send gifts to their relatives) and evencontacting themis difficult.
Asserting that Cuba's actions inthe 1960's are thecause (the implication being that they are the ONLYcause) of thecontinuing embargo implies that the United Statesgovernment has nocontrol over its own policy. The further implicationis that the policyis somehow just and rational. If this is true, whydo we essentiallystand alone in terms of world opinion? Why do we keepfinding ourselvesin this position? Why are we constantly the odd manout? Bush wouldargue that world opinion should not dictate ouractions, since we arethe leaders of the free world. Bush sees takingactions that horrify therest of the world as somehow heroic.
Personally,if I take astance and only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palaustand with me, Iwould hope I'd have the good sense to ask why the restof the world islooking at me like I'm wearing a dead cat on my head.
I have to go so I'm sorry that I missed some of your points. I'll be back later.
Weshouldstart providing more links rather than just stated something asfact.When I get a chance I'll start by providing evidence of U.S. tiestoColombian death squads, and you can look for articles stating thatwehad nothing to do with them. Good luck with that.
soapbox wrote:
peace.[/div][div] [/div][div]haven'tstatedmy position on covert operations,even the one's that indeedviolateinternational norms and conduct if not international law.[/div][div] [/div][div](cuba was a quarantine not blockade..therefore not illegal as per UN rulings)[/div][div] [/div][div]haven'tstatedmy position on cuba but have only stated that it's actions thenare thedirect reason why it finds itself still in the bad books now.[/div][div] [/div][div]nodoubtcuba has far strayed from the path of a true noble revolution andis arepressive police state governed by the cult ofpersonality,castrohimself and no other(s) and any action by the US withregards tofurther isolating his leadership (ie)him, certainly hurts the"people".[/div][div] [/div][div]wouldn't it be wise then for the people to rise up? (sorry for being a romantic this is nearly impossible)[/div][div] [/div][div]liftingtheisolation will happen right upon castros death.....let's not forgetwhathappened in the early days of the "bolivarian revolution"...it'sgoalwas to seize the wealth of american interests foremost.[/div][div]itwasa money grab and had little do with a social revolution from thebottomup,the true drive for change.it was guided by castro himself toobtainthe wealth that existed legally in cuba at the time.that beingamericaninvestment wealth and hotels,banks and property.[/div][div] [/div][div]therewasnever any apology from castro to american industry (who really werenotresponsible for the poverty in cuba since they brought investmentandwealth legally and were capped by foreign owneship restrictions)forpirating assests.why was america responsible for cuba manysocialills?what had america done in cuba to put cuba into the positionit wasin then? nada.period.[/div][div]the country and it's symbolicwealthwere a natural target...when really if any target should bedeterminedit would be washington.dc and policy makers that at thetime,reallydidn't have an issue with cuba as things were going rathernicely foreverybody (cubans and americans).[/div][div] [/div][div]attempts at reconcilation were dismissed by castro and his merry band of jungle revolutionaries as have been since 62'.[/div][div] [/div][div]that is the difference between the cuban situation and n.vietnam or vietnam today. [/div][div]vietnamsoughtimmediately talks at normalizing relations after thefinalwithdrawl.america refused due to it's military defeat there.[/div][div]vietnamknowingfull well it's struggle was really one of breaking the chainsof trueforeign domination sought only to liberate itself as a freenation...thepath chosen to do this was marxism/communism.[/div][div]whatwas a civilwar in reality became a testing ground for asian communistcontainmentwhen really it wasn't..as stated the struggle was one ofliberation fromthe french colonial influence and americans (mcnamara)changed it withintervention into a playground for this new containmentidea.[/div][div] [/div][div]vietnamtoday allows visitors from the USand investment because it't enemynever really was america.america madethe vietnamese into it's own enemyby intervention.vietnam now havingmatured into it's own nation unitedfree of colonial influence and longhaving since shed the rhetoric ofviolent revolution under the guise ofcommunisim has reached out to theworld community basically denouncingit's former path of politicalstruggle.having denounced the struggle isover...now can normalize andinvite investment and nations into it'scountry.[/div][div] [/div][div]cuba(rather) castro has never denouncedthe path or the revolution.for himthe struggle is still on whether ispeople are victims (they are) orbenefit![/div][div]castro continues to berate and provoke the US still now as he arrests his own people off the street.[/div][div] [/div][div]sure,hispeoplesuffer and sometimes a big stick hits the robber while it alsomaystrike the innocent civilian in the bank line up.[/div][div] [/div][div]preventing hard earned US cash from entering his economy is the only option other than an invasion!!!!![/div][div] [/div][div]yes,indeed funds were given to the contras...the contras were the only reaction against the sandinistas.[/div][div]americanfundsand assistance were given to the contras (many were left overremains ofthe somoza dictatorship,so by default american covert forceshad nochoice)[/div][div]aid was illegal and reagan worked around congress secretly diverting funds from other sources including sales of arms to iran![/div][div]fundingthecontras did not result in the natural victory foranti-contraforces...the fighting dies down and the sandinistasweredemocractically elected out.[/div][div]cia intervention did notachievethis nor was there US business interests in the region.it wasthecontainment policy in action not pro-US interests as theirreallywasn't big business interests to protect.[/div][div]pure ideology that's all.[/div][div] [/div][div]colombia....neverhasthere been a link between National Self Defense Forces (anti FARC)andthe CIA.no US involvement there....but there is alot of anti-drugcropmoney and anti-eradication money.this is upfront andtransparent.like itor not US tax money is assisting in democraticintiatives there.notpolitical dirt and covertness.[/div][div] [/div][div]