Cantr II Discussion Forum

I like the embargo. Communist and socialist nations far and wide stay semi-functional due to their (capitalist) trade with capitalist nations. Since communism and socialism are both threats to capitalism, I think capitalist nations should put an embargo on any and all self-declared socialist or communist nations, and let them to their own means.

Then again, as far as I'm concerned, there are no purely capitalist nations in the world.

No argument there, especially lately the USA is not moving towards socialism, it is sprinting.

My reason for not supporting the embargo is the same as yours for supporting...I think that selling them all the coca-cola we might be able to destabilize them. It seems arbitrarily cruel to make the citizens suffer because we have a disagreement with their government. We have been punishing and embargoing them for 50years, the only effect that I can see is people
literally dying to get out. I am just thinking that a change in direction probably can't make things worse, but I could well end up eating those words. I have no pity sometimes for countries run like that, I just note how the minority often imposes its will on the majority...Fidel landed with something like 10 people on the boat with him and made some pretty big promises. I think he has outlived all of those who he made those promises to though.

The revolution against Britain was mostly enacted by less than 20% of the population at the time. I am not complaining about the result, just noting how it fits into the thesis I postulated in the previous paragraph.

If I live another 50yrs, I will be interested in seeing what Fidel will be doing at that time...he never dies! Sarcasm alert. I hope.

Be well

I think the problem with selling them Coca-Cola is that they get to improve the quality of their life in ways that only capitalism can provide without having to commit to an ideology that respects the Rights of Man. In essence, their nation's quality of life rises, and this isn't attributed (ever) to capitalism, but rather, to the socialist remnants propped up by the capitalist backbone to any mixed economy. In the long run, it causes the "more capitalist" nations to have the more ignorant and less well-off segments of their population enchanted by the tales of free stuff and welfare for all of "more socialist" nations, essentially spreading socialism like an infectious virus. Mixed economies are the first step towards socialism, and ultimately, communism. Believe a Venezuelan that's living it in the flesh.

I'd prefer to let them to their own means, even if that means starvation. They should by all means rebel, and I fully support them rioting and overtaking their Government (this is the reason I fully support gun rights, an unarmed population isn't made of citizens, but of subjects), but until they make their own situation better, we're putting capitalism at risk by allowing socialism (and those who live by it) to thrive off of the scraps of industrialized capitalists.

Alladinsane wrote: there are no US ships blockading their ports preventing vessels from any european nation, and south american nation, any central american nation etc...they are free to trade with any of them. You could name over 200 countries that they are free to trade with and ONE that they cannot.

Bullshit

No NATO nation can trade with Cuba without, well getting kicked out of threatened to be kicked out of NATO.
The only NATO country that trades with CUBA is the UK, because of special agreements previous to the embargo.

Things have gotten worse since the Clintons:

In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba

There is plenty to read on the net on the subject.

"The embargo is the perfect example used by anti-Americans everywhere to expose the hypocrisy of a superpower that punishes a small island while cozying to dictators elsewhere."
— Moisés Naím, Newsweek [33]

Strange that none of that makes the news huh? Neither the right wing or left wing stations cover it. Must be a big conspiracy,
yeah thats it.

In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba

U.S companies...So where is the problem here? Nato, I don't really know about that, you may be right.

"North Atlantic Treaty Organization" hmmm...maybe.
Them boats would have to travel a long way too just to get threatened by USA blockading boats.

A conspiracy? How so?

I thought that after the cablegate, "conspiracy theory" had been erased from the dictionary. Go figure...

Sorry, sometimes my sarcasm doesn't play out.