USA Politics

Pretty sure the embargo is staying there, as it's a congressional thing, but diplomatic affairs belong to the Department of State, not to the Congress. A quick review of the primary laws that Congress has passed suggest they refer entirely to economic and financial matters.
 
I an not quite sure about that, I thought the law on the books tied any relations to releasing political prisoners and repatriation of stolen property.

In any case, good luck getting an ambassador appointed.

The sooner the assholes running Cuba die off and that whole regime goes away the better. On the plus side, the morons wearing Che Guevara shirts have an opportunity to look more foolish
 
bearfan said:
In any case, good luck getting an ambassador appointed.
Click to expand...
From the sad-but-true files.

Cuba has agreed to release US prisoners and other political prisoners, and things are starting to get different in Cuba under Raul. Not different enough, but I am pretty sure that re-opening the old lines of communication between the USA and Cuba will help. It used to be that Cuba was one of the USA's closest allies/puppets. That wasn't even a full lifetime ago.
 
LooseCannon said:
From the sad-but-true files.

Cuba has agreed to release US prisoners and other political prisoners, and things are starting to get different in Cuba under Raul. Not different enough, but I am pretty sure that re-opening the old lines of communication between the USA and Cuba will help. It used to be that Cuba was one of the USA's closest allies/puppets. That wasn't even a full lifetime ago.
Click to expand...


We had to release some Cuban prisoners. Including one convinced of murder as part of this deal
 
bearfan said:
We had to release some Cuban prisoners. Including one convinced of murder as part of this deal
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's unfortunate. Of course, there is an unnamed US spy who was released after 20 years as well. Anyway, it doesn't look like the embargo is ending any time soon. I guess my final say on the matter of if this is a good move or not is that I don't think the USA can really say they're fighting for freedom in Cuba when they have taken the exact same steps with China, who, by all accounts, is just as bad, or even worse, than Cuba on many aspects of freedom.
 
I guess that depends on what happens. This is another thing history will judge, I think. If the Castro regime passes with Raul and is peacefully replaced? Then this is a victory. If they are replaced by something just as vicious, then it is a defeat.
 
I would have preferred to wait for those two assholes to die and use normalization as a carrot for the next regime.

We gave legitimacy and essentially money to prop them up further in exchange for nothing.

Tons of articles out there for cigar and old car tourism already.

Not the right time for this at all.
 
bearfan said:
They will get money with lessened travel restrictions. I am struggling to see what we get from this.
Click to expand...
Tourism isn't permitted under the new rules. I don't think we're talking about a huge economic boon here. Maybe what America is getting is another ally in the long term. In the short term...well, maybe that shouldn't matter.
 
Tourism is not permitted .. but it kind of is since the exceptions to the restriction are moving from a case by case basis to a broad approval, US Credit cards can be used there now (up to $400). The amount of Americans going there and spending money is bound to increase ... which I think is a mistake now and in exchange for nothing, putting an embassy back there is a huge deal, we should be getting something in return .. like at least a starting step in returning property that was seized.
 
What about the possibility for private companies to invest in what is bound to become a major emerging market? Cuba is a country of no less than 11 million people and with no McDonald's or Pepsi.
 
.. and also a country that seized property of companies like them. I am not sure how confident businesses would be going there without some assurances as well as repatriation to companies that had their assets taken.
 
What are the grounds to assume that new assets would be seized again?
 
What grounds are there to assume they will not be ... this deal including at least some start to returning existing seized assets would have been a decent start. It is at least nominally the same regime that seized them to start with.

I cannot imagine what the insurance costs would be to build anything new there.
 
This was almost off the front page, huh.

So the 2016 GOP field is starting to take shape, and this looks like a doozy. Romney's talking about getting back in, Ryan and Paul and Cruz, possibly Perry and Huckabee (who makes a rape joke in one of the chapter titles of his new book, not a good choice if you actually want to win the general), Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

Am I missing anyone?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top