lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

okkkkkkkkkk~~ :wink:

straightUp Loc: California

No, I'm not basing this on the 50-year old stories about the revolution that the U.S. propaganda machine keeps recycling for you and yeah, Castro may have denied the the current existence of any political prisoners but he *did* release 53 of them last year as part of his negotiations with Obama and he has also agreed as part of the deal to allow international monitors into the country.

But since you asked... Sure, I'll expound.

First of all, let's understand that for all intents and purposes, broad economic sanctions function as a siege. That is, to starve or otherwise force people into desperation. The idea is that the people when desperate enough will turn on their leaders and fling open the city gates.

Six countries are currently under siege by the the most powerful nation in the world... Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Burma, Ivory Coast and Cuba. The reasons vary but the function is the same... force them into desperation so they turn on their leaders.

The second thing to consider is that stability is critical to the survival of any government. So a government will always have that interest in mind. They might degrade the lives the people to a point but they will never intentionally push them to desperation, which is exactly the purpose of a siege.

So in any possible situation involving broad economic sanctions, logic dictates that sanctions will seek more damage to the people than their leadership will.

Now, that being said. Let's have a look at some evidence. One way of measuring things is by following certain trends in relation to the adjustments in our sanctions.

Here's a link for you - specifically, the third point they make... I'll copy it here.

In a review published by Science in 2010, two Stanford researchers took a look at the embargo's effect on Cuban health. "Although establishing causality is difficult, US trade sanctions altered the medication supply and likely had focal, serious consequences on Cubans' health," they write. Here's why.

There are certain acts that occur, that if you put them together make a picture.

After the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act limited US medical exports into Cuba, Cuban imports of medical devices dropped dramatically. "Before (the act), Cuba imported $719 million worth of goods annually, 90% of which was food and medicines, from US subsidiary companies," the Stanford team writes. "Between 1992 and 1995, only $0.3 million was approved for sale by US subsidiaries."

After that, Cuba experienced a number of disease outbreaks linked to low medical supply, including fatal ones. "Medication shortages were associated with a 48% increase in tuberculosis deaths from 1992 to 1993; the number of tuberculosis cases in 1995 was threefold that in 1990." They found no major increase in Cuban imports of US medicine from 2001 to 2010, when the US relaxed some restrictions on aid to Cuba. That means Cubans may still be suffering as a result of US restrictions on medical exports.


So... to answer your question, I'm basing my view on logic and statistical information.

straightUp Loc: California

Ah, freedom. SUCH a buzzword. Freedom isn't a singular thing Big Mac, in fact the word doesn't even make sense until you apply it to context. By itself it's abstract. So how 'bout we cut the red, white and blue screaming eagle in the sky poetry bullshit and talk about the hard reality of freedom.

What exactly do the Cubans not have the freedom to do? At this point in history it's worth asking the question because freedom in Cuba *IS* improving.

In 1992, the Communist Party agreed to allow religious services and establishments. So Cubans now have the freedom of religion.

In 2003, the Communist Party dropped the ban on homosexuality and now Cuba has a vibrant LBGT community.

In 2013 Cuba lifted it's travel restrictions, giving the Cuban people the freedom to travel, wherever the U.S. let them.

One thing you might notice is that all these freedoms came after the Soviets disconnected. One thing I really do wish the right-wing would chill on is the cold-war perspective. That was us, the Soviets and the Chinese in the later half of the 20th century.

Seriously, about the only restriction left that I can think of is that they can't engage in any activities designed to bring down the regime. As far as I am concerned this is a slightly lesser problem now that people have the option of leaving, but it's still not ideally on par with our own 1st Amendment freedom... but even that is a fuzzy line...

Although we do have the freedom to speak out against the government, that freedom does not go so far as to allow conspiracy against the state. We actually do have sedition laws against that.

Here's a blurp from our own Sedition Act


SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.


Another thing about freedom is that it's not only limited by politics. Freedom is also limited by economics and although the communist regime in Havana has a history of limiting freedom politically, it is well-known that the before Castro, Cuban freedom was limited by U.S. economic power. The same economic power that created all the so-called banana republics in Central America and the Caribbean, where farmers did not have the freedom to grow their own food. They were in fact forced to grow crops exclusively for the U.S. market and were forced to buy staples from the U.S. at escalated prices.

What kind of freedom do you call that?

So... when you figure out WTF you're talking about, let me know.

straightUp Loc: California

I forgot the link...


http://www.vox.com/2014/12/17/7408743/cuba-embargo-failed

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1977486.html

Cuban government restrictions on religion remain severe although they have been eased on several fronts over the past year, according to the U.S. State Department’s annual report on freedom of religion around the world.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/threats.to.religious.freedom.in.cuba/32038.htm

And oh yes, that all important LBGT community what would we ever do without that?

straightUp Loc: California

Thank you for supporting my point about things changing for the better. You didn't know that did you? The significance of of 1992 is that prior to that, the practice of religion was flat out denied. Since then people *have* had the freedom to practice religion. The article from the Miami Herald isn't very specific about what it's calling religious restrictions but it seems most of their vague references involve religious frays into politics. The other article seems to confirm this although it drills down to more details about specific stories, nevertheless, each one seems to involve restrictions on religious influences on politics.

We also have restrictions on religion in politics, we are in fact secular and many Americans just go up the wall when you tell them that, which is enough to understand the generated animosity and of course if anything similar is going on in Cuba you can bet the State Department is going to frame that as a Cuban restriction on religious freedom because it suits their intentions and of course Christian Today is going to make a case out of it.

I don't see anywhere in either article where it's proven that Cubans can't practice religion. Prior to 1992 they could not.

Here - it took me less than 15 seconds to find an example of a published article complaining about U.S. government restrictions on religion.

http://capitalismisfreedom.com/freedoms-that-the-government-has-limited/

So things have been changing here too. It won't take you long to notice that some of the "restrictions on religion" being pointed out are new... introduced by Bushes PATRIOT Act.


I could make the same crack about the Christian community. As far as I am concerned neither of them are any more "important" than the other. The point is they have that freedom.