Article

2004-07-11 Caribbean-Latin America

Keep the Cuba embargo? YES by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-11 4:52:35 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Some people do not understand the embargo of Cuba. Its purpose is to keep American hard currency out of the hands of a Communist thug by restricting most trade and travel. Since the military controls all tourism-related business ventures in Cuba, lifting the U.S. travel embargo would put at least $5 billion to $6 billion directly into Castroâs hands every year. That influx of cash would allow Castro to return to his practice of exporting his troops to wage terror against the U.S., as he did in Grenada."

Absolutely! Cuba is easy to deal with but what to do with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? We have a madman with petrodollars to finance all sorts of terror against the US. Look what he is doing in Bolivia and Ecuador.

Posted by Anonymous4617 2004-07-11 5:13:42 AM|| 2004-07-11 5:13:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Hugo needs to depart in Yugo, but they are too slow!

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-11 5:23:10 AM|| 2004-07-11 5:23:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Many believe (including the Economist) that trade embargos actually help keep dictators in power (see Hussain, Saddam). The trade embargo, coupled with the travel embargo, are issues we should be seriously debating rather than simply excepting. The goal is to remove castro in the best way possible and if we can do that faster with a flood of levis we should consider it.

Posted by Yank 2004-07-11 10:38:25 AM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-07-11 10:38:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Is that why the Soviet Union is history, while China gets stronger every day? I think the best way to remove a dictator is to form an opposition army with US advisors and use US forces to neutralize the airforce and heavy weapons.

Posted by ed 2004-07-11 11:12:25 AM|| 2004-07-11 11:12:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Ed, we tried that once. See "Bay of Pigs".

Posted by Steve White 2004-07-11 1:20:28 PM|| 2004-07-11 1:20:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I think he means do it for real...JFK and the CIA hung those guys out to dry

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-11 1:25:40 PM|| 2004-07-11 1:25:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 JFK had a problem with premature withdrawal. JFK withdrew air support and resupply so the exiles were not able to break out into the highlands. I am talking about about air attacks to destroy the heavy equipment and not allow the enemy to concentrate forces.

As an example, there are over a million Iranian exiles in the US and who knows how many in Europe. Why not build and exile army of 100-200K light to medium equipped forces using US cold war surplus arms to take back Iran. The US can provide air attack and fast, heavy mechanised to go after the really stubborn forces. If the Iranian hate the mullahs as advertised, then it should not be that difficult to recruit additional 100s of thousands on the march. Why not apply such a model to other murderous regimes such as Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Posted by ed 2004-07-11 1:52:59 PM|| 2004-07-11 1:52:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Ed, we didn't have a true embargo against Russia. Russia collapsed because their economy was centrally planned and incapable of competing against the US economy. With sanctions on Cuba we avoid that same competition and allow Castro to blame the US for all of Cubas problems.

If you look at a list of the dictators that have remained in power the longest you will recognize them as the same anti-American folks we've imposed sanctions against. Blaming the US for your problems is a good way to prevent revolution and we shouldn't give our enemies that card to play.

Posted by Yank 2004-07-11 6:22:21 PM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-07-11 6:22:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 #3. I see what you are saying.Flood the market with expensive goods creating a demand for which they can not afford.HMMMMMM.

Posted by rich woods 2004-07-11 10:35:48 PM|| 2004-07-11 10:35:48 PM|| Front Page Top

01:47 Ebbavith Angereling7227
16:10 Anonymous5765
19:42 Alaska Paul
19:26 True German Ally
19:23 CrazyFool
18:43 Dan
14:45 Antiwar TROLL
12:12 Tibor
09:41 eLarson
03:16 FlameBait93268
00:32 Anonymous4617
00:10 Mark Espinola
00:03 Verlaine
00:03 Alaska Paul
00:01 Zenster
23:50 Jen
23:48 Zenster
23:48 Les Nessman
23:28 Remote Man
23:28 Pappy
23:24 Remote Man
23:14 Anonymous5701
22:57 Jen
22:55 Mike Sylwester