US-Cuba Trade : No Cash No Chicken

[Ken Gargett]

2 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Of course it did.  I don’t think anyone is arguing the effect of the embargo.  I believe @dgixxer252525 was pointing out that the embargo wasn’t for evil, funzies, or a laugh.  Cuba could end that embargo tomorrow if they wanted it.  Just drop the communist regime, install a democratic government, and ask for foreign investment.  You’d have corporations lining up to buy property and open businesses.  Just don’t complain when it doesn’t look like old Cuba and looks more like Honolulu in 15 years.  

that will almost certainly be a downside for many of us - that cuba becomes the next bali or cancun  etc etc and over the years i have been visiting, it has been edging ever so slightly towards that. long way to go. but surely you have to leave that to each individual country. what right do we have to tell other countries what direction they should take (obvious exceptions if it impinges on other countries)? i would hate to see it go that way but it is hardly up to me. nor should it be up too politicians in DC. 

but that is most certainly not what our friend said. "no other countries..." 

[Kevin48438]

The embargo was a response to the nationalization of companies and properties owned by US companies and investors.  The subsequent “diplomacy” further cemented the policy.  

Foreign relations is messy.   It’s like working in a sound booth trying to record a live orchestra performance and you get one shot at it.  As you are getting the levels right and the speakers balanced:  instruments are breaking, novice players are coming in, and the pianist just puked his bottle of vodka into the piano.   
 

So the CD sucks and we’re all disappointed.  Realistically, the best one could do was prevent us losing our hearing.

[dgixxer252525]

2 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

that will almost certainly be a downside for many of us - that cuba becomes the next bali or cancun  etc etc and over the years i have been visiting, it has been edging ever so slightly towards that. long way to go. but surely you have to leave that to each individual country. what right do we have to tell other countries what direction they should take (obvious exceptions if it impinges on other countries)? i would hate to see it go that way but it is hardly up to me. nor should it be up too politicians in DC. 

but that is most certainly not what our friend said. "no other countries..." 

Ken you assume to know more about World History and Cuba than most others in the site, and you very well may. The FACT is that you don't know more about Cuba and THE USA than I do.  Every time I post on this site it on a Cuban political thread, and there is a reason for that. My family has fought the regime for 60+ years both here and there, and I have to do my part to continue their legacy. I buy hondas and love them to death, like you buy Cuban cigars and love them. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the japanese political sphere, much like you shouldn't with regards to Cuba. Drink your Havana club and smoke your Cohiba...to me(and MANY on this site that have reached out via pm) it's personal. 

 

Also, you would hate to see the country go the way of Honolulu? No McDonald's or taco bell's? No car dealerships selling audis and Ford F250s? That's offensive to me. My FAMILY wants holiday inns, and fast food, and best buys! They couldn't care less about losing their "unique-ness" and would much rather join the rest of the world in enjoying 2021...

I get really upset (as do the other Cubans on this site) when people say things like this: " i would hate to see it go that way but it is hardly up to me"...perhaps it's because it's coming from a guy living in a first world country enjoying fine spirits and cigars, and not from someone who is scared to even search for "patria y vida" like my family on the island is...

[El Presidente]

33 minutes ago, dgixxer252525 said:

I get really upset (as do the other Cubans on this site) when people say things like this: " i would hate to see it go that way but it is hardly up to me"...perhaps it's because it's coming from a guy living in a first world country enjoying fine spirits and cigars, and not from someone who is scared to even search for "patria y vida" like my family on the island is...

I seriously respect your opinion and passion, never forget that. I have great Cuban friends and business partners in Miami who feel the same as you do. 

We simply disagree on the methodology to achieve the outcome that we mutually seek. 

 

[Ken Gargett]

4 minutes ago, dgixxer252525 said:

Ken you assume to know more about World History and Cuba than most others in the site, and you very well may. The FACT is that you don't know more about Cuba and THE USA than I do.  Every time I post on this site it on a Cuban political thread, and there is a reason for that. My family has fought the regime for 60+ years both here and there, and I have to do my part to continue their legacy. I buy hondas and love them to death, like you buy Cuban cigars and love them. I won't pretend to know the ins and outs of the japanese political sphere, much like you shouldn't with regards to Cuba. Drink your Havana club and smoke your Cohiba...to me(and MANY on this site that have reached out via pm) it's personal. 

 

Also, you would hate to see the country go the way of Honolulu? No McDonald's or taco bell's? No car dealerships selling audis and Ford F250s? That's offensive to me. My FAMILY wants holiday inns, and fast food, and best buys! They couldn't care less about losing their "unique-ness" and would much rather join the rest of the world in enjoying 2021...

I get really upset (as do the other Cubans on this site) when people say things like this: " i would hate to see it go that way but it is hardly up to me"...perhaps it's because it's coming from a guy living in a first world country enjoying fine spirits and cigars, and not from someone who is scared to even search for "patria y vida" like my family on the island is...

first, i have never ever claimed or made the assumption that i know more about world history and Cuba than anyone on the site. please do not put words in my mouth. i have my own views on Cuba and indeed plenty of other places including the US but merely because i am not Cuban or American, are you suggesting i can't express those views? sounds pretty much like the govt you claim to oppose.

exchanging different opinions is one of the joys of this forum. i am very surprised you oppose that. the day i am not allowed to express an opinion, or anyone else is prevented from doing, so provided it is within the rules of the forum, then that will be the last day i'll be on it. 

it is a while since i lived in DC and i am sure things have changed but it gives me a basis for an opinion. and with the world the way it is, these days it is much closer to one news community, whether you like that or not. you want to disagree with me fine, i really don't give the proverbial rat's. but i am always happy to debate it and to listen to others. as for Cuba, i have visited many times, sometimes for reasonably lengthy periods. i have friends there. i have spoken, at great length to people on both sides of the argument. i have read as widely as i can. i am not for a second suggesting that makes me an expert or an authority but it surely gives me the basis for an opinion. and if that is different to yours, so be it. but if you think you being unhappy about it means that i won't express it, good luck! and i would hope the same goes for everyone. 

i'm also a little puzzled. you appear to be criticising me for a love of cuban cigars. seems a strange place to do it. i would assume that is why you are here? if it is merely to attack those with different views, i suspect you'll get seriously bored before long. you seem to imply that buying cuban cigars supports the current regime. perhaps it does and if so, that makes all of us somewhat hypocritical. but if you are here because you also love cuban cigars, but want to attack those who also do then that is gold medal hypocrisy. and if you are not here for the cigars, why are you here? 

if you have read anything i have written on this forum here or at any stage over the last 20 years (or however long we have existed), you will not find any posts from me supporting the govt. absolutely the contrary. i believe that removing the embargo would be to the benefit of the cuban people - you may disagree and fine but simply because you have a different perspective than mine does not make it right. as much as you might believe the contrary. remove the embargo and what would follow would make it much more difficult for the govt to resist. i believe that would be the best way to help the people. and it was certainly the overwhelming opinion of the vast majority of the cuban people with whom i spoke. being ensconced in america may give you the luxury of a different opinion. 

as for changes, cuba is unique. i would hate it to be one more bali/cancun etc. please note that despite what you claim, i have never said honolulu. as part of the USA, that really makes it something very different from the places i have mentioned (and having spent only a few hours there a few decades ago, i simply know so little about the place that i would never make that comparison). but i have always said that despite what i might think, the removal of the embargo is what i would believe would be best for the people. that is what i honestly think. so again, don't give that proverbial rat's if my honest opinion upsets you. you are welcome to disagree. 

[hoyopr]

So where are we at with the chicken situation?

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, Kevin48438 said:

The embargo was a response to the nationalization of companies and properties owned by US companies and investors.  The subsequent “diplomacy” further cemented the policy.  

Foreign relations is messy.   It’s like working in a sound booth trying to record a live orchestra performance and you get one shot at it.  As you are getting the levels right and the speakers balanced:  instruments are breaking, novice players are coming in, and the pianist just puked his bottle of vodka into the piano.   
 

So the CD sucks and we’re all disappointed.  Realistically, the best one could do was prevent us losing our hearing.

we'd need to write books on this stuff to cover it fairly, and there are plenty of books which have been written, but very basically, 'US companies and investors''? the mafia? sure, plenty of other 'investors' but they were basically being handed the country by corrupt dictators. at the time of the revolution, more than half of all land was apparently in the hands of foreigners. something like 85% of cubans in the agrarian industries worked, directly or indirectly, for offshore entities. castro's appeal to the cuban people was very much based on righting this. and removing a corrupt regime (i very much agree with rob and others that the US is largely the shining light among nations, but they certainly do not get it right all the time - again, a topic deserving books). 

the embargo was an extension of the US policy, one which was very actively pursued, of regime change. and never denied at the time. 

castro put in place, or offered to (would need to research that a lot more to find out the exact details), a policy where a small percentage of the money received from the US for the cuban sugar exports to America was to be placed in a fund which in time would be used to refund any entity which lost property. it would have taken time but it was hardly the actions of a government that was hostile to the US. it was an attempt to find a policy that would satisfy all parties to the extent possible. the US response was to immediately slash sugar imports from cuban, destroying any chance of that working and plunging cuba into an economic crisis. it was left with little option but to look to the soviet union. (before anyone decides to imagine this means i was in favour of cuban/soviet links, i assure you i am not and never have been - merely trying to look at this objectively). 

when the USSR collapsed in 89, suddenly the need to keep the embargo to prevent soviet influence in the region was gone and the reason immediately became human rights or whatever else they could think of. surprisingly, no one was mentioning the political benefits to be gained in florida from the embargo. 

i completely agree with you on foreign affairs being difficult and problems of subsequent diplomacy. i'd also agree that things were influenced by those who were pissed off by the nationalisation, although i'd argue more so that it was being pissed off by the removal of the regime they were supporting. 

like most things, it is way way more complex than one simple reason or act. 

 

[mprach024]

This debate is the vicious cycle that’s existed since the embargo’s inception.  It’s best for the Cuban people for the embargo to end.  I’m sure 100% of us agree with that.  To end the embargo and begin supporting the current communist regime to help them and ultimately the people be more successful is also probably not well liked universally.  Is it hypocritical for the USA to choose this route when we do business with other oppressing countries?  Sure, if you look at it through a microscope, there’s no denying that.  The difference is those other countries have never directly threatened our security like Cuba did.  Threatening our national security or our harm doesn’t typically work well financially for other countries (hello Iran).  To that I say, “can you blame us?”

This topic is referred to as a political “third rail” in reference to the third rail of a subway line, touch it and die.  There’s just no political gain for anyone in the USA to support the embargo’s end with the current regime in place.  

-Support the ending of the embargo and you are a communist sympathizer and supporter of an oppressing government, aiding in their success and lining their nationalistic companies pockets with money.  Also goodbye to the Latin vote who largely oppose it (swing state Florida with a heap of electoral votes).  

-Support keeping it and you support the continued poverty the Cuban people live in.  Not to mention our military is openly against the dissolution.  Can’t give the Chinese, Russians, any potential communist threat a forward operating base with established infrastructure.  

This is quicksand, and while it’s easy to paint broad strokes or opinions, like everything geopolitical it’s far more complicated.

Like I said before, it’ll end when the Cubans decide.  Whether that’s the Cuban government changing policies and welcoming free trade and capitalistic views, or the Cuban people through a revolution.  It’s sad that’s the options, but that’s the required terms of change, and that’s been communicated since the beginning.  The ball has been in the Cubans court this whole time.  It’s a bad situation with no easy way to fix, especially  with no one leading the charge on either side of the fence, Americans nor are there Cubans.

[Bijan]

10 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

The difference is those other countries have never directly threatened our security like Cuba did.  Threatening our national security or our harm doesn’t typically work well financially for other countries (hello Iran).  To that I say, “can you blame us?”

To this I would add this potentially apocryphal story, I have always found amusing.

"you might recall the response of the Mexican ambassador when John F. Kennedy was trying to organize collective security in defense against Cuba back in the early ’60s in Mexico: the ambassador said he would regretfully have to decline because if he were to tell Mexicans that Cuba was a threat to their national security, 40 million Mexicans would die laughing."

https://chomsky.info/roguestates03/

Much the same with Iran. The US supported Iraq in their was against Iran, the US tried to overthrow the government of Cuba. I'm not saying either was justified or not justified. The threat was a million times greater in the opposite direction. No question the US is a shining light and Iran and Cuba are corrupt regimes, but anyone worried about them as an existential threat... Seems crazy to me.

[mprach024]

5 hours ago, El Presidente said:

North Korea comes to mind. 

 

That’s not a city in China Rob ?

Weve never declared war on China was my point.  I do understand Chinas role in that conflict however.

 

1 hour ago, Bijan said:

To this I would add this potentially apocryphal story, I have always found amusing.

"you might recall the response of the Mexican ambassador when John F. Kennedy was trying to organize collective security in defense against Cuba back in the early ’60s in Mexico: the ambassador said he would regretfully have to decline because if he were to tell Mexicans that Cuba was a threat to their national security, 40 million Mexicans would die laughing."

https://chomsky.info/roguestates03/

Much the same with Iran. The US supported Iraq in their was against Iran, the US tried to overthrow the government of Cuba. I'm not saying either was justified or not justified. The threat was a million times greater in the opposite direction. No question the US is a shining light and Iran and Cuba are corrupt regimes, but anyone worried about them as an existential threat... Seems crazy to me.

Rat hole here.  I’m not taking your bait!! ??

You’re right though. The nuclear missiles being built in Cuba were most definitely not going to be aimed at Mexico.  
 

[Bijan]

Again this is the mafia theory of foreign relations. When a small country doesn't toe the line, it sends the message to other countries that they can do the same.

The analogy is like a small shop keeper that doesn't pay protection money. You have to kneecap them so other businesses keep paying up.

Similar thing was discussed with China taking drastic action against Australia for some minor questions about covid, etc. So it's a general superpower thing. Most smaller powers keep it within their own backyards (though of course Cuba is doubly so as it is America's backyard as well, but Iran is not), Russia and all the countries in its orbit, etc.

 

1 hour ago, mprach024 said:

You’re right though. The nuclear missiles being built in Cuba were most definitely not going to be aimed at Mexico.  

Thanks, we'd probably both get banned

 

 

Anyways to get it out of US politics.

To me foreign relations are the one area of politics entirely about selfish interests, national or otherwise, and are equally amoral or immoral whether it is the greatest democracy or the worst dictatorship. This is helped in good deal by the fact that people in most countries care a lot less about what is going on elsewhere in the world.

As you say @mprach024 most Americans don't care, and lean narrowly against Cuba, but usually don't give it a second thought. Those Americans that care (Cubna Americans) support the policy. So little hope it seems, even if one believes the policy is self-defeating. But change does happen every now and again.

 

[mprach024]

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

Again this is the mafia theory of foreign relations. When a small country doesn't toe the line, it sends the message to other countries that they can do the same.

The analogy is like a small shop keeper that doesn't pay protection money. You have to kneecap them so other businesses keep paying up.

Similar thing was discussed with China taking drastic action against Australia for some minor questions about covid, etc. So it's a general superpower thing. Most smaller powers keep it within their own backyards (though of course Cuba is doubly so as it is America's backyard as well, but Iran is not), Russia and all the countries in its orbit, etc.

Nah.  You’re leaving out a very major piece of history, where first strike nuclear missiles were being built in Cuba.  Small innocent shopkeeper they were not.  Whether they were building them or helping their friends build them is splitting hairs on guilt.  They weren’t gonna be pointed at Mexico and Canada.  

[Bijan]

2 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Nah.  You’re leaving out a very major piece of history, where first strike nuclear missiles were being built in Cuba.  Small innocent shopkeeper they were not.  Whether they were building them or helping their friends build them is splitting hairs on guilt.  They weren’t gonna be pointed at Mexico and Canada.  

Fair enough. But "we" were putting nukes in Turkey (or wherever it was) at the time pointed at Russia. I have a friend who says if we do it it's fine. If they do it, shame on them, how dare they.

And beside for the rest of the cold war tons of Russian missiles had that capability from Soviet soil and we didn't impose half the sanctions or embargoes on them.

[mprach024]

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

Fair enough. But "we" were putting nukes in Turkey (or wherever it was) at the time pointed at Russia. I have a friend who says if we do it it's fine. If they do it, shame on them, how dare they.

And beside for the rest of the cold war tons of Russian missiles had that capability from Soviet soil and we didn't impose half the sanctions or embargoes on them.

First off, NATO put those missiles in Turkey as a deterrent to protect West Europe, not the USA homeland.  Yes we made the large part of NATO and still do, but that was not a unilateral move.

Cuba was not our only embargo, it’s the most famous, but there were loads of sanctions and embargo’s levied throughout the Cold War.  We ended that conflict with money, not troops.  Anywhere where they propped up communist regimes got embargoed, including China in the 50s.  We still do this with countries like Venezuela.

[Bijan]

1 minute ago, mprach024 said:

First off, NATO put those missiles in Turkey as a deterrent to protect West Europe, not the USA homeland.  Yes we made the large part of NATO and still do, but that was not a unilateral move.

Cuba was not our only embargo, it’s the most famous, but there were loads of sanctions and embargo’s levied throughout the Cold War.  We ended that conflict with money, not troops.  Anywhere where they propped up communist regimes got embargoed, including China in the 50s.  We still do this with countries like Venezuela.

That's a fair point. Just meant that there was more to the story. No need to get too deep there. Just to say there was a context to that. The Cubans didn't ask for the missiles, but were willing pawns, in this game of brinkmanship between NATO and the Soviets.

The point on embargoes and sanctions is fair too, but here again I would say it is proof that countries always strike the weakest link and not the greatest problem. One could ask why Korea and Vietnam wars and not Czechoslovakia.

[mprach024]

13 minutes ago, Bijan said:

And beside for the rest of the cold war tons of Russian missiles had that capability from Soviet soil and we didn't impose half the sanctions or embargoes on them.

The natural deterrence from soviet soil missiles was there was enough time in the event of a launch for us to detect and launch our own.  This meant a nuclear attack was also a suicide play.  With them in Cuba, the time it took to hit their targets was minutes, meaning they could attack without fear of retribution, this unbalanced the threat nature and is why that was such a big deal at the time.

[Bijan]

Just now, mprach024 said:

The natural deterrence from soviet soil missiles was there was enough time in the event of a launch for us to detect and launch our own.  This meant a nuclear attack was also a suicide play.  With them in Cuba, the time it took to hit their targets was minutes, meaning they could attack without fear of retribution, this unbalanced the threat nature and is why that was such a big deal at the time.

I can see it was a difference.

But really? Minutes to end all US global launch capability? Quick enough to end all the US missiles before even the chance of a counter attack?

I'm not one to fear nuclear war. So that biases my opinions. The greatest risk of nuclear disaster is a mix up that results in missiles fired in error. I don't think the calculus ever works out in favour of an actual launch.

That being said though with Cuba being Cuba you don't want them with the missiles ???

[mprach024]

7 minutes ago, Bijan said:

I can see it was a difference.

But really? Minutes to end all US global launch capability? Quick enough to end all the US missiles before even the chance of a counter attack?

Well it was the early 60s.  Technology has improved a bit since ??  

Remember we barely had any satellites then.  Our first satellite was only a few years before this event took place.  

 

[Bijan]

1 minute ago, mprach024 said:

Well it was the early 60s.  Technology has improved a bit since ??  

Remember we barely had any satellites then.  Our first satellite was only a few years before this event took place.  

 

I was going to say they had phones in the 60s in that reply... But didn't want to be too snarky

 

[mprach024]

1 minute ago, Bijan said:

I was going to say they had phones in the 60s in that reply... But didn't want to be too snarky

 

*Ring ring*

-hello?

-yeah I’m in DC and a nuclear missile just landed can you launch ours?

-how are you calling me if you’ve been hit by a nuclear missile?

-good point I guess I couldn’t

?????

 

[Bijan]

1 minute ago, mprach024 said:

*Ring ring*

-hello?

You forgot to ask for the operator ?

But seriously they had modems in the 1960s.

[mprach024]

Just now, Bijan said:

You forgot to ask for the operator ?

But seriously they had modems in the 1960s.

Modems!  Lol you are cracking me up.  Missiles could land from Russia in the time it took for my modem in 90s to connect!  

In all seriousness I enjoyed this back and forth, have a good night bud I’m off to sleep.

 

[Bijan]

18 minutes ago, mprach024 said:

Modems!  Lol you are cracking me up.  Missiles could land from Russia in the time it took for my modem in 90s to connect!  

In all seriousness I enjoyed this back and forth, have a good night bud I’m off to sleep.

 

Same here!

I'm assuming for a nuclear launch line you'd leave the modem fully connected and pay for an extra phone line.

Then you're looking at about 300 bits per second with 1962 technology. So about a second to send a fully coded message. Maybe 5 seconds for full text.

Edit: Again nuclear launch line, so if you needed it, you could run 10 lines in parallel to send data faster.

Edit 2: Also I'm happy we're now discussing the finer points of modem technology. I feel way more comfortable with my knowledge level here

 

[El Presidente]

1 hour ago, mprach024 said:

That’s not a city in China Rob ?

Weve never declared war on China was my point.  I do understand Chinas role in that conflict however.

US traded shots with roughly 300,000 of them  

They have on balance an even more aggressive regime today. They are still communist. Human rights abuse galore.

However producer of cheap product and major  purchaser of US  govt bonds.

= free pass

It is the reason why much of the world looks at the US Cuba policy with no respect.

Get out of the way and enable Cubans to have a better life.

     Unlimited remittances

     Unlimited travel.

     Fast forward communications technologies.

    Finance and manage belt and road projects.

    Dedicated Cuban privateer support programs/business/finance/information sites.

With no one left to blame, the Cuban govt will fall in a decade.

      

     

 

 

 

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, mprach024 said:

This debate is the vicious cycle that’s existed since the embargo’s inception.  It’s best for the Cuban people for the embargo to end.  I’m sure 100% of us agree with that.  To end the embargo and begin supporting the current communist regime to help them and ultimately the people be more successful is also probably not well liked universally.  Is it hypocritical for the USA to choose this route when we do business with other oppressing countries?  Sure, if you look at it through a microscope, there’s no denying that.  The difference is those other countries have never directly threatened our security like Cuba did.  Threatening our national security or our harm doesn’t typically work well financially for other countries (hello Iran).  To that I say, “can you blame us?”

This topic is referred to as a political “third rail” in reference to the third rail of a subway line, touch it and die.  There’s just no political gain for anyone in the USA to support the embargo’s end with the current regime in place.  

-Support the ending of the embargo and you are a communist sympathizer and supporter of an oppressing government, aiding in their success and lining their nationalistic companies pockets with money.  Also goodbye to the Latin vote who largely oppose it (swing state Florida with a heap of electoral votes).  

-Support keeping it and you support the continued poverty the Cuban people live in.  Not to mention our military is openly against the dissolution.  Can’t give the Chinese, Russians, any potential communist threat a forward operating base with established infrastructure.  

This is quicksand, and while it’s easy to paint broad strokes or opinions, like everything geopolitical it’s far more complicated.

Like I said before, it’ll end when the Cubans decide.  Whether that’s the Cuban government changing policies and welcoming free trade and capitalistic views, or the Cuban people through a revolution.  It’s sad that’s the options, but that’s the required terms of change, and that’s been communicated since the beginning.  The ball has been in the Cubans court this whole time.  It’s a bad situation with no easy way to fix, especially  with no one leading the charge on either side of the fence, Americans nor are there Cubans.

completely agree that there is no easy answer to all this. and no doubt the politicians involved on all sides will be making decisions that are not always in the best interests of the cuban people or indeed, the american people - they will, as ever, have a very large slice of self interest in mind. no easy answer, nor is there a quick one. 

all that said, i do not see ending the embargo as supporting the cuban govt (i think rob has said that he sees the govt falling in ten years when the embargo goes - i agree). and if you can find anyone who has known me at any stage over the last umpteen decades who genuinely thinks i am a communist sympathiser then i will buy you lunch anywhere anytime, and any box of cubans you chose! 

sure, some short term pain but this is the best way i can see for the cuban people to advance. waiting for the cuban govt to do the right thing has not really worked (and nor does it work anywhere, waiting for a govt to do the right thing).

it also seems self-evident that the embargo has been a monumental failure. 60 years and look where it has got cuba. perhaps it might be time to try something else. but i accept that others may have a different view. for me, if the cuban govt no longer have the embargo to blame, they will be revealed as what they are. 

the 'threatened our national security' card has been played for decades. i think that ship sailed so long ago. this is a nation which does not have signs outside the capital in many places as they are worried that an invading force may use the signs to find havana. does that really sound like a threat to the greatest military power the world has ever seen? 

even in the early days, when you say who can blame you for security concerns, i would agree with you. a nation must protect itself (love the mexican story above). but if we go back a touch then you have cuba seeing the US do whatever they can do to instigate regime change and destroy the cuban economy. do you blame cuba doing whatever it can to protect itself and going to the soviets? unfortunate but hard to be critical.

but all this simply reaffirms what we both know. this is extremely complex and not easy to solve. but, and this goes back to my original post, it is most certainly not solely the fault of the cuban govt.