# U.S. Seeks To Normalize Relations With Cuba



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This is absolutely wonderful news for the people of Cuba! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:



> The United States and Cuba exchanged prisoners Wednesday as part of a deal to expand trade, increase travel, and normalize relations between the U.S. and its six-decade communist foe, government officials said Wednesday.
> 
> "We will end an outdated approach that has failed to advance our interests," Obama said in making a formal announcement at the White House. "These 50 years have shown isolation has not worked."
> 
> ...


U.S. seeks to normalize relations with Cuba


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't suppose that's true--it had a tremendous effect on it!



> Obama said the decades-long embargo has had little effect on Cuba's regime


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

nothing changes until the Raul Castro and his warlord bother die.. 
Let's hope Cuba doesn't release their worst upon the US again like they did in the 80s. I am very skeptical. http://youtu.be/gl9OddN29Z4




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.





Obama is just another Carter.. God Help the US with amnesty for Mexicans and Cubans - our borders are going to get busy very soon. 
I love the people and country - been there 7 times.. but the overlords are pure evil and that won't change until death due them part of the Castro overlords. What about the Canadian political prisoners ? who are in jail because they were doing 'cuban' style business but got caught in the political tug of war.. communism is still that. sorry to bum out your thread..


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

macintosh doctor said:


> Let's hope Cuba doesn't release their worst upon the US again like they did in the 80s. I am very skeptical.


That stuff at the beginning of Scarface was true?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It will be interesting to see if Obama's dictatorial style of government rubs off on the Castros.



chasMac said:


> That stuff at the beginning of Scarface was true?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

chasMac said:


> That stuff at the beginning of Scarface was true?


the documentary is on Netflix currently called Cocaine Cowboys. and yes Scarface is based on a true character too..


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It will be interesting to see if Obama's dictatorial style of government rubs off on the Castros.


LMAO You may need to go look up the definition of the word "dictatorial".


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

ShawnKing said:


> LMAO You may need to go look up the definition of the word "dictatorial".


Didn't Obama say he will veto what ever he wants and do what ever he wants ?
Yup dictatorship


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> Didn't Obama say he will veto what ever he wants and do what ever he wants ?
> Yup dictatorship


So - you *didn't* look up the word? It's OK. Go ahead...I'll wait...


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

ShawnKing said:


> So - you *didn't* look up the word? It's OK. Go ahead...I'll wait...


Ok. Obamas term ends soon but he ruled like one
Does what he wants.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> Ok. Obamas term ends soon but he ruled like one
> Does what he wants.


Yup. You still have no clue what the words you are using actually mean.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

OK, go for it.



ShawnKing said:


> Yup. You still have no clue what the words you are using actually mean.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macfury said:


> OK, go for it.


Sorry? Go for what exactly?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Explain why you have a problem with Obama's leadership style being described as dictatorial.



ShawnKing said:


> Sorry? Go for what exactly?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I dunno. I quite appreciated the lack of American influence in Cuba when I went there last July. It was like a corner of the world the US hadn't totally taken over culturally yet. No Coca-Cola anywhere. This is bad news for Tukola, Cuba's national brand, which I actually came to prefer. And the tradition of driving old 1950's American vehicles and rebuilding and maintaining them so well (because they can't get models or parts for newer ones)—that's a pretty cool tradition too. As Dr G says, we shall see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Explain why you have a problem with Obama's leadership style being described as dictatorial.


So I have to explain myself but you don't have to understand what the word "dictator" means? OK...you hold your breath while I write up your demands....

Any second now....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You don't have to do anything--you missed the boat on this awhile back.



ShawnKing said:


> So I have to explain myself but you don't have to understand what the word "dictator" means? OK...you hold your breath while I write up your demands....
> 
> Any second now....


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> I dunno. I quite appreciated the lack of American influence in Cuba when I went there last July. It was like a corner of the world the US hadn't totally taken over culturally yet. No Coca-Cola anywhere. This is bad news for Tukola, Cuba's national brand, which I actually came to prefer. And the tradition of driving old 1950's American vehicles and rebuilding and maintaining them so well (because they can't get models or parts for newer ones)—that's a pretty cool tradition too. As Dr G says, we shall see.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree if the US enters they will open KFCs and Costco, Walmarts etc
Which will not benefit the Cubans at all except reiun the coastal remote feel. 
Castro Inc, will still own everything and anything. Plus people will still be paid
In a cheaper useless currency meant only for locals while tourists use the higher value
Currency. 
Not to mention US is freeing 5 Cubans prisoners for 2 U.S. men. Fair trade
Plus the bonus Castro is still in power and stills speakes badly of the US as a bully etc
Only propping up the communist regime as a winner. 
The saving grace is that senate and house have to approve this. Thank God they are Republican. 
Compare this China - US deals with a horrible regime that pays thier people peanuts to
Make an iPhone and communists careless about trademarks. 
No difference.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You don't have to do anything--you missed the boat on this awhile back.


LOL I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Care to explain?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> I agree if the US enters they will open KFCs and Costco, Walmarts etc
> Which will not benefit the Cubans at all except reiun the coastal remote feel.
> Castro Inc, will still own everything and anything. Plus people will still be paid
> In a cheaper useless currency meant only for locals while tourists use the higher value
> ...


m-d, your understanding -if we can call it that- of US-Cuba geopolitics and, might as well put it out there, reality in general, is truly frighteningly warped.

I no longer have the patience to engage the willfully uninformed, as I did back in the day with late-ehMacer MacNutt. But in your case it's easier... Gerry at least based his opinions on his very real relationships with actual Cubans. The pile of horse manure above is easily dismissed as the rant of the rabid Right.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> The pile of horse manure above is easily dismissed as the rant of the rabid Right.


I think it makes things easier when people throw around stuff like this and the "Obama is a dictator!" crap. Makes it so much easier to ignore them.

Life is too short to debate with the maliciously stupid.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

People are getting too excited. The prisoner swap is big, but it's also the only tangible thing that's changed. The rest is just talk. Some people have mistakenly interpreted this dialogue as meaning the embargo is being removed -- that is absolutely not true. Obama may be giving the impression that it is in recent interviews, but lit's simply not true. The embargo is an act of congress, it has not been changed, and Obama doesn't even have the authority to change it even if he wanted to (and he knows that). Economic sanctions are still in place, trade and tourism is still banned.

Sadly, I suspect that this is all just for show as the Democrats are losing their majority in the House, and this is probably just a symbolic parting shot so that they can claim that it's all the Republicans fault that it didn't work.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> This is absolutely wonderful news for the people of Cuba!


Don, I shared this happiness - and there are some positive things that will come of improved relations. Gross' family will have him home for Christmas (though his bosses get off scott free). The three remaining members of the Cuba Five anti-terrorist spies will also be back on the island with their families, and they'll be treated as the heroes that they are.

But.

The embargo remains in place. Obama has limited ability to repeal it, thanks to Clinton's idiotic signing away of Presidential power in this regard to Congress with the Torricelli Act (Cuban Democracy Act) in 1992. Only Congress can lift the embargo.

And Obama's statement today notes that the United States' ultimate goals for Cuba have not changed - they've just finally (after a half-century) realized that their approach thus far hasn't worked. So Washington still wants a nice little caribbean lapdog like they had before 1959, and the approach going forward will be less punitive and exclusionary, and more an effort to buy Cubans' love with baubles. 

It might work for them. More Americans travelling to Cuba will certainly improve Cuba's financial picture, though tourism is no longer anywhere near the vital revenue source it once was.

In any case, this is a marked turn in bilateral relations, and will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nobody said Obama was a dictator. It was a comment based on his efforts to change immigration laws without seeking approval of either the House of representatives or the Senate--and without signing an actual Executive Order--in the style of a dictator.

You must not have been paying attention.



ShawnKing said:


> I think it makes things easier when people throw around stuff like this and the "Obama is a dictator!" crap. Makes it so much easier to ignore them.
> 
> Life is too short to debate with the maliciously stupid.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Nobody said Obama was a dictator.


Macfury: "It will be interesting to see if Obama's dictatorial style"

macintosh doctor: "Didn't Obama say he will veto what ever he wants and do what ever he wants? Yup dictatorship."

Who's not paying attention now?

(It's going to be fun to watch you split this hair)


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Shawn, clearly the joke went over your head. The fact that you're still protesting does make it even funnier though, so by all means keep it up.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

heavyall said:


> Shawn, clearly the joke went over your head. The fact that you're still protesting does make it even funnier though, so by all means keep it up.


"Protesting"? What am I protesting? Sorry but you're going to have to be less obtuse.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

And the good humor just keeps on coming here at ehMac. It's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

ShawnKing said:


> Macfury: "It will be interesting to see if Obama's dictatorial style"
> 
> macintosh doctor: "Didn't Obama say he will veto what ever he wants and do what ever he wants? Yup dictatorship."
> 
> ...


Your insistence on believing macinshop doctor was being literal to deflect criticism from Obama is the issue. I suspect macinshop doctor is well aware of the differences between the Presidency and a dictator like Fidel Castro. We hear lefties use "King Harper" and all kinds of titles and descriptions that we know full well the person isn't being literal but using to describe how they see his actions. Insisting they think Harper is a real "King" would be a ridiculous argument to make.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Your insistence on believing macinshop doctor was being literal to deflect criticism from Obama is the issue. I suspect macinshop doctor is well aware of the differences between the Presidency and a dictator like Fidel Castro. We here lefties use "King Harper" and all kinds of titles and descriptions that we know full well the person isn't being literal but using to describe how they see his actions. Insisting they think Harper is a real "King" would be a ridiculous argument to make.


bingo.. you deserve a gold star and Shawn a timeout for being an online bully and name calling.. which is not allowed.. but hey its ehMac and it is a free for all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark, considering the outrageously restrictive economic regulations around foreign investment, is Cuba offering to thaw this out a little? Does the US get any concessions for making this announcement?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

As I understand it. The Washington Fat Cats get to buy Cuban Cigars without the worry of their mule being busted. Cubans get to buy electronic devices with a direct pipeline to the NSA data bank pre-installed.

Other than that its mostly hype.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Does the US get any concessions for making this announcement?


Apparently not.

Barack Obama’s Cuban Soup Sandwich



> Unfortunately Barack Obama once again failed to make even the slightest effort to work with Congress, and it shows. The deal he negotiated (and I use that term loosely) pretty much gave Cuba everything Raul Castro wanted and aside from the release of Alan Gross and an unidentified spy, *the U.S. got nothing but some meaningless promises from Cuba.*


However:



> Fortunately Congress does still have some say in what happens.
> 
> ...
> 
> Congress is pretty much forced to take up this issue, but at least it will be under Republican control when it happens. When they do take it up, *there will be an opportunity to win some concessions, from both Cuba and Obama, in exchange for any loosening of economic sanctions.* If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will finally show some backbone and negotiating skills, something good can still come of this.


All bold mine.


----------



## ShawnKing (Mar 21, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> bingo.. you deserve a gold star and Shawn a timeout for being an online bully and name calling..


LMAO Exactly where was I a bully? And what names did I call anyone?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> tourism is no longer anywhere near the vital revenue source it once was.


I'd be very interested to hear your perspective on this, Mark (seriously).

I've only been travelling to Cuba in the last five years, but what I've seen is a rapid expansion of tourism that is remarkable to watch.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Death in the family, guys. I'll be back in awhile.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> It will be interesting to see if Obama's dictatorial style of government rubs off on the Castros.


:lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> Death in the family, guys. I'll be back in awhile.


Sorry to know that Mark, condolences to you and yours.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> m-d, your understanding -if we can call it that- of US-Cuba geopolitics and, might as well put it out there, reality in general, is truly frighteningly warped.
> 
> I no longer have the patience to engage the willfully uninformed, as I did back in the day with late-ehMacer MacNutt. But in your case it's easier... Gerry at least based his opinions on his very real relationships with actual Cubans. The pile of horse manure above is easily dismissed as the rant of the rabid Right.


I agree with 99.9 percent of what you said.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> And the good humor just keeps on coming here at ehMac. It's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup.

The traffic goes up when people are on holidays.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Death in the family, guys. I'll be back in awhile.


OMG!

Mark, I am so sorry to hear that.

My thoughts are with you and yours.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> Death in the family, guys. I'll be back in awhile.


I'm so sorry to hear that Mark. My thoughts and prayers are with you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I am sorry to hear that Mark. My condolences.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

While the site can sometimes be grating, "Democracy Now!" often has some very insightful reporting from Cuba. One of the things they've been discussing was what this new more open dialogue could mean with the situation with Guantanamo. There's a good chance that could be the next stumbling block to anything moving forward.

People here do not really contemplate what a big deal the return of the Cuban 5 is. People are literally cheering in the streets. That these anti-terrorist agents were labeled as spies and jailed really pissed a lot of Cubans off, it was a burning issue. But that was nothing compared to how many Cubans feel about Guantanamo. It's an affront to Cuba's sovereignty that America signed their own perpetual lease and continue to occupy that chunk of the island. 

I can easily picture Raul deciding that the US pulling out completely and giving Guantanamo back would be the next step required before any other talks go forward. The question is, would Obama go that far? I mean, he DID promise to do exactly that, so with the right PR he probably could save face from bending over to an ultimatum. But it could also blow back in a bad way painting him as giving away too much with nothing in return -- some of the diaspora in Miami are already trying to make that claim about just the prisoner swap. I realize it's all conjecture, but there is a very real possibility that those discussions could mean that we go right back to a "non-normalized" relationship.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Perhaps he would like to show that he dan work with a communist country to shame Russia little bit. From what I recall, there were a hella lotta Russian missile sites there aimed at the USA. Maybe this is a roundabout way of rockin' in the new world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

That's a good observation fjn. There are still a lot of Russians living in Cuba, more now than in the recent past. Russian war ships docked in Havana last year. The US could be making nice with Cuba just to roll that kind of stuff back.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Yeah, about that Cuban "deal". An old saw about a gold mine & a shaft comes to mind...

State Dept. Can’t Explain Why Cuba Isn’t Fulfilling Promises Made in Obama Deal



> State Department Spokesperson Jen Psaki repeatedly refused to answer questions this afternoon about the 53 political detainees Cuba promised to release as part of a deal with President Obama to normalize relations with the United States.


Hmmm...



> This State Department press briefing is sure to do little to settle concerns that the White House will not be able to keep Cuba accountable to keep their promises. *Mary O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal notes, “Now, little by little, what he says he got in the ‘negotiations’ seems to be evaporating while what he gave away appears reckless.”*


M'bold,

Ya think?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Yeah, about that Cuban "deal". An old saw about a gold mine & a shaft comes to mind...


Let's get one thing out of the way: Using Fox News or Mary O'Grady as sources on anything to do with Cuba is an exercise in obfuscation and distortion. Neither has demonstrated an ability to talk about any aspect of Cuba without giving the matter their own very tedious spin.

Not sure what the issue is here, anyway. As the White House said (and BBC reported), about half of these prisoners have been released, the rest are expected in the coming days. The right-wingers are creating a conflict where none exists, and it's tiresome.

*HeavyAll*: we have generally opposing views, but I agree with much of what you have posted regarding the US-Cuba opening. 

For my part - it's sadly, frustratingly funny to see the political Right and anti-Castro mouth breathers in general get all twisted up about this announcement. Funny because Cuba is getting very little out of this, from my perspective. It's fabulous that the Cuban Five are all home now, and Gross' family surely is happy that he's back among them. 

*But.*

The embargo stays in place. The global financial restrictions under which Cuba must operate remain in place. The threats of treasury department action (fines, etc.) against businesses who work with Cuba remain in place. The travel ban is being "loosened" but it remains to be seen just how many Americans will be able to take advantage of the regulatory changes. 

The opening of an Embassy in Havana (in reality, an expansion of their existing Interests' Section within the Swiss Embassy) will mean very little, beyond perhaps a larger U.S. contingent (which means, naturally, a larger contingent of U.S. spies and destabilization efforts). 

The goals of the US have not changed - the complete overhaul of the Cuban political and economic system - they have simply come to the same conclusion that the rest of the world did decades ago: that the embargo & isolation will not work.

Equally hilarious are the moans coming from the Left (and I mean the superficial folks who like Cuba because it's cool to wear their anti-americanism on their sleeves and Che on their t-shirts without having a real clue about what cuba solidarity really means): they're often heard worrying out loud that any day now McDonald's will be opening on the corner of 23 and 12, that American corporations will just set up shop and run the country into the ground... people who don't have a clue about Cuba's concepts of sovereignty and economic control.

MacFury asked earlier in this thread about economic investment - whether Cuba had given a concession to the US by allowing more liberal foreign investment. Answer: no way in hell. Cuba has a well-established foreign investment scheme that goes back to the early 1990s, and was perhaps first engaged by Canada's Sherritt mining company, which extracts nickel from a plant in Moa, and over the last 20 years has branched out into power generation and other areas. But Cuba has never allowed willy-nilly foreign investment. They are very careful about in which sectors of the economy foreign interests can participate. Strategic investment is their model, and never in an economic sector that could potentially be destabilized by the whims of foreigner profit-seekers. Cuba partnered in areas where they needed technological upgrading, among other interests.

There is no "human right" for investors to be allowed into any economy, though it appears many on the political Right feel that this is something that should be in their constitution.

Cuba's method of managing foreign investment - allowing investment in certain sectors, with guaranteed ROI over a specified period, with potential for longer-term partnerships (and it's always partnerships, never 100% foreign ownership), explains Cuba's impressive economic growth over the past two decades. Even the World Bank recognized this as early as 2001:

_"They have done a good job, and it does not embarrass me to admit it." 

His (World Bank President James Wolfensohn-ed.) remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba's social record, despite recognition that Havana's economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the "Washington Consensus", the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank's policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years. 

Some senior Bank officers, however, go so far as to suggest that other developing countries should take a very close look at Cuba's performance. 

"It is in some sense almost an anti-model," according to Eric Swanson, the programme manager for the Bank's Development Data Group, which compiled the WDI, a tome of almost 400 pages covering scores of economic, social, and environmental indicators. 

Indeed, Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank's dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not, downright wrong._
(Xing)​
Global development banks like the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the IMF - they have all pushed policy agendas that call for less government oversight, less regulation of investment and business activity, less spending on social programmes (in fact, the IMF loan conditionalities _required_ governments to cut social welfare spending in order to receive loans!). Cuba did the exact opposite and has a much better record to show for the effort.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> The goals of the US have not changed - the complete overhaul of the Cuban political and economic system...


If that's true, then Obama and I are on the same page.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> Let's get one thing out of the way: Using Fox News or Mary O'Grady as sources on anything to do with Cuba is an exercise in obfuscation and distortion. Neither has demonstrated an ability to talk about any aspect of Cuba without giving the matter their own very tedious spin.


Let's get another thing out of the way. Engaging in ad hominem rebuttals does nothing to further your argument. Wanna come across as credible? Address the message, not the messenger. 

So you don't like Fox. Fine. What about their message is incorrect?



CubaMark said:


> Not sure what the issue is here, anyway.


The issue is clearly stated in the first paragraph of the article. The State Dep't refused to give answers on the promised release of prisoners. 

Regarding your link to the BBC article, it offers no further information as to who & how many, either. 



CubaMark said:


> The right-wingers are creating a conflict where none exists, and it's tiresome.


The right-wingers are asking a simple question that the left-wingers are refusing to answer.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> *HeavyAll*: we have generally opposing views, but I agree with much of what you have posted regarding the US-Cuba opening.
> 
> For my part - it's sadly, frustratingly funny to see the political Right and anti-Castro mouth breathers in general get all twisted up about this announcement. Funny because Cuba is getting very little out of this, from my perspective. It's fabulous that the Cuban Five are all home now, and Gross' family surely is happy that he's back among them.


To be fair, until I had actually gone to Cuba to see it for myself, I held many of the same views of it that my fellow conservatives do. My responses to you would probably echo much of what FEXL is posting here.

Even when I did first go, it was essentially under duress. I was vehemently opposed to "supporting the dictator", but my wife basically said that her and my daughter were going no matter what. I'm really glad I did, because it was a real eye opener. It's nothing at all like I was led to believe, and the more I see of it, the more I like it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> ...the more I see of it, the more I like it.


The part you get to see, anyway.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The part you get to see, anyway.


Typical. 

Harkens back to the days when the rabid right-wing press in Florida tried so hard to convince the world that every foreigner who's steps foot on Cuban soil is immediately supplied a "handler" that ensure they see nothing of the "real" Cuba ('real' being a euphemism for the most horrid of nightmares that live in sick minds).

With millions of tourists wandering all over Cuba each year, and a population of only 11-million, that would seem to be an organizational capability unheard of in command-driven economies like Cuba!

This is an imaginary evil caribbean island society that the anti-Cuba crowd continues to attempt to conjure up in the minds of the uneducated and those who have never been (the latter being a considerable number of U.S. citizens, as it forbid its citizens from travelling to the island legally). It helps their personal / professional ambitions to portray the island as a horrible gulag of a nation, as a way to convince others that their policy recommendations (driven by now-ancient grievances and ideological fanaticism) are justified.

For my part, I've been from one end of the island to the other, occasionally with fellow researchers (never assigned to me - people I have sought out for collaboration) and frequently alone. I've lived with Cuban friends in their homes, and visited many others. And as HeavyAll noted, it's nothing at all like the hell-hole Cuba's critics have painted her out to be.

For those with a genuine interest in learning more about Cuba from an English-language source, and a person who was anything but a crazy lefty, check out the blog by Conner Gorry. She's a NY native who married a Cuban and moved to Havana over 13 years ago. And there's not a topic she shies away from... the sky's the limit! (she also has an iPhone travel app)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never said Cuba was hell on earth--only that it is backwards.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> The part you get to see, anyway.


That's another thing I used to think. The only place in Cuba that you're not allowed to see is Guantanamo. Everywhere else is wide open.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Some news to make FeXL less cranky:*

*Cuba’s Release of Political Prisoners Continues, Dissidents Say*

_HAVANA – The release of political prisoners continued Friday for the third day in Cuba, where at least 38 prisoners have been let out of jail since Wednesday, Elizardo Sanchez, leader of the opposition Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, or CCDHRN, told Efe.

Dissidents on the island attribute these releases to Cuba’s promise to free a list of 53 political prisoners as part of the agreement to renew diplomatic relations with the United States, although this relationship has not been made public.

Sanchez expects these releases to continue Friday and said that, at the rate they are being granted, all 53 of those political prisoners could be out of jail this Friday._

(Latin American Herald Tribune)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

heavyall said:


> My responses to you would probably echo much of what FEXL is posting here.


Now you've done it...


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

CubaMark said:


> *Some news to make FeXL less cranky:*


Cranky? <snort> Hardly. 

Just looking for a politician, especially a left-leaning one, to actually be accountable.

Thx for the link.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Flooding Cuba with US goods will overthrow the regime faster than any embargo.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Seems appropriate...


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

What is that cartoon supposed to be saying? That Cubans have more liberties than Americans do?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

heavyall said:


> What is that cartoon supposed to be saying? That Cubans have more liberties than Americans do?


No. That Cubans do not have the liberties Americans do--therefore the so-called normalization is nothing to celebrate.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> No. That Cubans do not have the liberties Americans do--therefore the so-called normalization is nothing to celebrate.


Very true.

Cubans do not have the liberty to sleep in the streets.

Cuban children do not have the liberty to go hungry.

Cuban parents do not have the liberty to work themselves into the grave for health coverage and education for their children.

Cuba certainly has its issues, but it's far from the tropical gulag so many on the Right like to portray. In my 20 years of travelling to the island, conducting research, making lifelong friends (all the while staying as far from the resort scene as possible), I feel confident in saying the majority of Cuban are happy with the system they have - they'd just like life to be not so materially difficult. And the reason for that is the U.S. embargo, despite the misinformation and outright lies critics like to spin on that point.

I'm in my ninth year living here in Mexico. As a comparison, I can say:

No Cuban mother fears that her child will be caught in a shootout between the cops and narco gangs as they walk to or from school, or be swept up by kidnappers for ransom or to be sold into sexual slavery.

No Cuban mother could conceive that her children will fall into a world of drugs. (and if somehow that did happen, free addiction treatment would be a given)

Anyway - let's not go off on a tangent (yet again) about the positives & negatives of the Cuban experience. It's been done _ad nauseum_ in this forum. I'm far more interested in the continuing lack of desire by the Canadian government to enforce its own laws....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And all you have to do is live like a vassal---great trade!!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> And all you have to do is live like a vassal---great trade!!


Yep.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> ...*the Canadian government to enforce its own laws....*


CM have you ever done any carpentry work?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Macfury said:


> No. That Cubans do not have the liberties Americans do--therefore the so-called normalization is nothing to celebrate.


So the cartoon is just BS American propaganda then. OK.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> CM have you ever done any carpentry work?


I could build a passable coffee table, and know which end of a router to avoid... but I'm missing your allusion....?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

So back when we started this thread, I posted this:



heavyall said:


> I can easily picture Raul deciding that the US pulling out completely and giving Guantanamo back would be the next step required before any other talks go forward.


Looks like that might be exactly what we are looking at now:

Cuba demands return of Guantanamo Bay, compensation by U.S. before relations can resume | National Post



> Cuban President Raul Castro demanded on Wednesday that the United States return the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, lift the half-century trade embargo on Cuba and compensate his country for damages before the two nations re-establish normal relations.


Even I didn't imagine he'd have the stones to ask for compensation!!!

It will be VERY interesting now to see just how badly Obama wants to establish this as his legacy. I can't see him being too happy about it, but the Castros aren't the ones with a finite political shelf life. They've been getting by for over 50 years the way things are, remittances have greatly increased, and 2014 was a record year for tourism to the island.

This is going to be fascinating to watch. I'm looking forward to returning to Cuba in february to get a feel for how people on the island are looking at all this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why didn't you imagine it? Didn't you read _Animal Farm?_ The "crisis" of the "blockade" has been holding that creaky ship together for a half-century. 

As for Obama, his legacy as the worst president since WWII is signed, sealed and delivered. Beating out Jimmy Carter... that took stones!



heavyall said:


> Even I didn't imagine he'd have the stones to ask for compensation!!!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why didn't you imagine it? Didn't you read _Animal Farm?_ The "crisis" of the "blockade" has been holding that creaky ship together for a half-century.


If, as you allege, the embargo was ineffective, why was it not dropped to "expose" the supposed economic failures of the Cuban government?

Y'all can't talk out of both sides of your mouths and expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I never supported the embargo. 

I only said that I understood why it was enacted, when it became clear that Cuba had no intention of paying people for its theft of property. I don't believe the US government has a legitimate moral right to tell other businesses not to trade with another country, unless they're on a war footing.



CubaMark said:


> If, as you allege, the embargo was ineffective, why was it not dropped to "expose" the supposed economic failures of the Cuban government?
> 
> Y'all can't talk out of both sides of your mouths and expect anyone to take you seriously.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> I could build a passable coffee table, and know which end of a router to avoid... *but I'm missing your allusion*....?


Understandable as it is my bad, I posted to the wrong thread.

Never mind.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I thought you meant that as a university graduate, he could be assigned the job of carpenter in Cuba!



screature said:


> Understandable as it is my bad, I posted to the wrong thread.
> 
> Never mind.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I thought you meant that as a university graduate, he could be assigned the job of carpenter in Cuba!


Well there is that... but it was not my intention.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I only said that I understood why it was enacted, when it became clear that Cuba had no intention of paying people for its theft of property.


Did you miss the part where Cuba had every intention of paying for the legally nationalized property but the negotiation of that payment was blocked by the US government?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Did you miss the part where Cuba had every intention of paying for the legally nationalized property but the negotiation of that payment was blocked by the US government?


Yep, and it was all based on an inane sugar export formula that was never going to happen. Better not to steal in the first place.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> Well there is that... but it was not my intention.


I assumed the carpenter remark was some comparison to Jesus.

I also assumed you had been killed by lightning bolt soon thereafter.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Question to CM.

So do you think recent events are?:


A good thing.

A bad thing.

Nothing has changed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> I assumed the carpenter remark was some comparison to Jesus.
> 
> I also assumed you had been killed by lightning bolt soon thereafter.


Wow! :yikes: 

I don't know where that is coming from, especially since I am not a Christian.

Just to add I don't appreciate the reference to me being killed. 

A first here on ehMac. I suppose it is wise to be prepared for the unexpected. But that post, I have to admit, I was not prepared for... but it was certainly unexpected.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> I assumed the carpenter remark was some comparison to Jesus.
> 
> I also assumed you had been killed by lightning bolt soon thereafter.


Wow! :yikes: 

I don't know where that is coming from, especially since I am not a Christian.

Just to add I don't appreciate the reference to me being killed. 

A first here on ehMac. 

I suppose it is wise to be prepared for the unexpected. But that post, I have to admit, I was not prepared for... but it was certainly unexpected.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> Wow! :yikes:
> 
> I don't know where that is coming from, especially since I am not a Christian.
> 
> ...


Screature there is a thing called humor. Please Wikipedia it. You may also want to drill down to the section on sarcasm.

I can't find the rolleyes emoticon. Please pretend it is <here>


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Yep, and it was all based on an inane sugar export formula that was never going to happen. Better not to steal in the first place.


Sort of like the inane expectation of U.S. citizens/companies to be compensated for what they claimed the businesses were worth according to the paltry taxes they paid?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Question to CM.
> 
> So do you think recent events are?:
> 
> ...


I think I pretty much covered my views in posts #23 and #48, unless there's a specific point on which you'd like me to comment?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Sort of like the inane expectation of U.S. citizens/companies to be compensated for what they claimed the businesses were worth according to the paltry taxes they paid?


Why would the taxes paid on a property have anything to do with their objective value? If people pay higher municipal taxes on their properties, their houses should be worth more?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Why would the taxes paid on a property have anything to do with their objective value? If people pay higher municipal taxes on their properties, their houses should be worth more?


 Short answer: Part of Cuba's calculation for compensation in the nationalization process was the* declared value *by the companies / citizens of the property in question. In pretty much all cases, the declared value was lowballed to the extreme, so that their tax bill to the (pre-Revolutionary) state was paltry. Cuba took 'em at their word, which P'd off everyone with a nationalization claim. Got it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I would have been angry as well. The declared value for tax purposes is not the same as the sale price on the open market. I don't think the revolutionaries did well by their double dealing.



CubaMark said:


> Short answer: Part of Cuba's calculation for compensation in the nationalization process was the* declared value *by the companies / citizens of the property in question. In pretty much all cases, the declared value was lowballed to the extreme, so that their tax bill to the (pre-Revolutionary) state was paltry. Cuba took 'em at their word, which P'd off everyone with a nationalization claim. Got it?


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

Those US companies should have taken the offer when it was on the table. Cuba had no obligation to offer anything. Any assets that American companies had in Cuba were illegally obtained in the first place.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think you're beginning to overidentify with the political culture on your brief Cuban vacations to offer much objectivity. If the Canadian government simply expropriated your house after offering a pittance for it, I suppose you would smile and say: "I guess I should have accepted what they were offering, since that land was illegally taken from Canadian Indians to begin with anyway." Of course, to take the Cuban parallel to a greater level of accuracy, you wouldn't be offered cash--just the promise of compensation based on a formula involving wheat export revenues.

We can just assume that all foreign owned properties in Cuba were obtained illegally by companies, by individuals and by those driven from the country by violence, so it simply doesn't matter what happened after that?



heavyall said:


> Those US companies should have taken the offer when it was on the table. Cuba had no obligation to offer anything. Any assets that American companies had in Cuba were illegally obtained in the first place.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> S*creature there is a thing called humor. Please Wikipedia it. You may also want to drill down to the section on sarcasm.*
> 
> I can't find the rolleyes emoticon. Please pretend it is <here>


Was this meant to be humorous or just condescending? I think the latter.

Drill down yourself. Sarcasm is one of the lowest forms of humor and often comes across as being insulting.

Also humor is subjective. You *may* have meant for your post to be humorous, but* I highly doubt that you meant for me to find it humorous*, which I clearly did not. 

Your disdain for me is well documented here so why would I think that your post was meant to be humorous? 

BTW... Here is the roll eyes emoticon... it is 4 rows down and in the last column on the right.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> Was this meant to be humorous or just condescending? I think the latter.
> 
> Drill down yourself. Sarcasm is one of the lowest forms of humor and often comes across as being insulting.
> 
> ...


Screature it was a joke. That's it.

You've misunderstood other jokes here, not just by me. 

I do not bare you ill will, nor anyone here on the forums. I've had problems with your posts and as I recall you apologized to me both times for being out of line.

You really could have just asked what I meant in the post. You took it somewhere dark.


EDIT: Corrected Posts rather than posted


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> Screature it was a joke. That's it.
> 
> *You've misunderstood other jokes here, not just by me. *
> 
> ...


As I said humor is relative. What one person may find funny another could find offensive... There is no misunderstanding in that, it is a lack of good communication on the part of the person who is speaking/writing so that their words could/would not be "misunderstood". 

Just look around the world today.

Je suis Charlie comes to mind and countless, countless other examples.

In terms of *me* taking it somewhere dark, no I did not. You did. you talked about me being killed... that is about as dark as it gets.

As I said before you may have meant your post to be funny to others but it wasn't funny to me.

And I have the right to find your "joke" not funny.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> As I said humor is relative. What one person may find funny another could find offensive... There is no misunderstanding in that, it is a lack of good communication on the part of the person who is speaking/writing so that their words could/would not be "misunderstood".
> 
> Just look around the world today.
> 
> ...


Good god Screature.


It was a joke.

You took my post at literal value.
I clarified it was a joke.
And I clarified I have no ill will towards you.

I guess you don't have the ability to take life less seriously and laugh at yourself. I feel sorry for you.

Shame, shame on you for bring up Je suis Charlie as a point in this argument.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature, honestly I could see the joke smashedbanana was trying to make. It had nothing to do with you being killed or wanting you to be killed. He's apologized without reservation for unintentional offense. How about letting it go now?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Je Suis Charlie is the new Adolph Hitler for the sake of argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> screature, honestly I could see the joke smashedbanana was trying to make. It had nothing to do with you being killed or wanting you to be killed.* He's apologized without reservation for unintentional offense.* How about letting it go now?


That is the thing, he never did apologize, check the record. His posts simply placed the blame back on me for not "understanding" his Joke. If he did actually apologize I would be more than happy to let it go. 

A real apology would include the the words "I apologize". Something along the lines of:



> screature, it was meant to be a joke, sorry that you took offense, I apologize.


That, or something like it, would constitute an apology. He did nothing of the sort.

Of course you could see the "joke" because it was not directed at you. I have already said that others may have found it funny but I did not.

I understand that many people have difficulty in apologizing to others, but I am not one of them. I probably do it to a fault just to keep the peace and I guess have become tired of doing it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *Je Suis Charlie is the new Adolph Hitler* for the sake of argument.


Based on what? That statement makes no sense to me, but at the same time I think I know where you are coming from... funny that. Care to elaborate on what you mean?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> *Good god Screature.
> 
> 
> It was a joke.*
> ...


Why exactly does my not finding your "joke" funny mean that I am incapable of laughing at myself and why do you think I need or want your sympathy?... More condescension perhaps?... Yeah I think that fits the definition.

Re: Shame, shame, I have no idea what you are talking about. *The point is/was that what one person finds funny another person may find insulting.* What the hell is shameful in the that and pointing it out???

It is just the truth... As recent history/throughout history has indicated time and time and time again...

Same as it ever was.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BTW Sinc I apologize for completely derailing your thread... it was not my intention.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

He said that no offense was intended, that the joke was not personally directed at you and that he harbours you no ill will. It would work for me as it gets to the root of the matter. IMHO, "I apologize" is less than that. 



screature said:


> That is the thing, he never did apologize, check the record. His posts simply placed the blame back on me for not "understanding" his Joke. If he did actually apologize I would be more than happy to let it go.
> 
> A real apology would include the the words "I apologize".


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> *He said that no offense was intended,* that the joke was not personally directed at you and that *he harbours you no ill will*. It would work for me as it gets to the root of the matter. IMHO, "I apologize" is less than that.


No he did not. Check the record.

Yes he did say that.

But it is still not an apology for what he said.

Why do you think that so many people who find another person's comments offensive ask for a "formal" apology...? Because it matters. Just ask FeXL when it came to gt. I didn't get it until now how much it does matter.

Even the enfant terrible JT had to recant his statements and apologize humbly when he was not the heir apparent, when he shouted across the aisle and called the Honorable Peter Kent an asshole.

So a formal apology does matter, at least in a civilized society like Canada IMO.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Maybe another thread is appropriate at this point to carry on this conversation and not continue to derail this one...

Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

screature said:


> No he did not. Check the record.
> 
> But it is still not an apology for what he said.


No thanks screature.

That ship has sailed.

I meant no ill will to but you've pushed it too far.

I think it's pathetic how you've reached deep to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Apologies are most important when you need to salvage a relationship or the public perception of one.

I have no interest in maintaining a relationship of any sort with you.

Good day.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> No thanks screature.
> 
> That ship has sailed.
> 
> ...


Yep that sounds about right coming from you.

Fine by me.

Ta ta.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Cuba opens Washington embassy, urges end to embargo*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






_WASHINGTON (Reuters) - _The Cuban flag was raised over Havana’s embassy in Washington on Monday for the first time in 54 years as the United States and Cuba formally restored relations, opening a new chapter of engagement between the former Cold War foes.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez presided over the reinauguration of the embassy, a milestone in the diplomatic thaw that began with an announcement by U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro on Dec. 17.

Underscoring differences that remain between the United States and Communist-ruled Cuba, Rodriguez seized the opportunity to urge Obama to use executive powers to do more to dismantle the economic embargo, the main stumbling block to full normalization of ties. For its part, the Obama administration pressed Havana for improvement on human rights.

But even with continuing friction, the reopening of embassies in each other's capitals provided the most concrete symbols yet of what has been achieved after more than two years of negotiations between governments that had long shunned each other.​
(Yahoo! News)

*ALSO: * Cuban Embassy Reopening Celebrated With Song and Dance


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why not? Obama is already financing US domestic spending by borrowing from the hostile Chinese government. No excuse to favour one dictatorshiip over another.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Why not? Obama is already financing US domestic spending by borrowing from the hostile Chinese government. No excuse to favour one dictatorshiip over another.


Not to mention things like the Anti-Patriot/Anti-Freedom Act, the NSA, FATCA and various other human rights violations the US perpetrates on its own citizens.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> Sort of like the inane expectation of U.S. citizens/companies to be compensated for what they claimed the businesses were worth according to the paltry taxes they paid?


Or, how about the Republican Party calling the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan Foreign Aid! The World isn't the only thing that spins


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Brother Obama*
_We don’t need the empire to give us anything. Our efforts will be legal and peaceful, because our commitment is to peace and fraternity among all human beings who live on this planet._


* * *​
Let us see, however, how our illustrious guest thinks today:

"I have come here to bury the last remnant of the Cold War in the Americas. I have come here to extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people,” followed by a deluge of concepts entirely novel for the majority of us:

“We both live in a new world, colonized by Europeans,” the U.S. President continued, “Cuba, like the United States, was built in part by slaves brought here from Africa. Like the United States, the Cuban people can trace their heritage to both slaves and slave-owners.”

The native populations don’t exist at all in Obama’s mind. Nor does he say that the Revolution swept away racial discrimination, or that pensions and salaries for all Cubans were decreed by it before Mr. Barrack Obama was 10 years old. The hateful, racist bourgeois custom of hiring strongmen to expel Black citizens from recreational centers was swept away by the Cuban Revolution - that which would go down in history for the battle against apartheid that liberated Angola, putting an end to the presence of nuclear weapons on a continent of more than a billion inhabitants. This was not the objective of our solidarity, but rather to help the peoples of Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bissau and others under the fascist colonial domination of Portugal.

In 1961, just one year and three months after the triumph of the Revolution, a mercenary force with armored artillery and infantry, backed by aircraft, trained and accompanied by U.S. warships and aircraft carriers, attacked our country by surprise. Nothing can justify that perfidious attack which cost our country hundreds of losses, including deaths and injuries.

* * *​
Obama made a speech in which he uses the most sweetened words to express: “It is time, now, to forget the past, leave the past behind, let us look to the future together, a future of hope. And it won’t be easy, there will be challenges and we must give it time; but my stay here gives me more hope in what we can do together as friends, as family, as neighbors, together.”

I suppose all of us were at risk of a heart attack upon hearing these words from the President of the United States. After a ruthless blockade that has lasted almost 60 years, and what about those who have died in the mercenary attacks on Cuban ships and ports, an airliner full of passengers blown up in midair, mercenary invasions, multiple acts of violence and coercion?​(Granma)​


----------

