The real tragedy of change in Cuba would be to lose all those perfectly preserved cars from the 50s on the streets.

[quote="Neal Anderth"]The real tragedy of change in Cuba would be to lose all those perfectly preserved cars from the 50s on the streets.

Truth! Let's preserve the 50's!

Think about how difficult it is to keep them in great shape with all of the humidity!

So far as I'm aware (I could be wrong), the main reason why there are still all those cars in Cuba is that Castro banned private car ownership but allowed people who already owned cars to keep them so long as they were able to keep them running (and presumably to pass them on to their children). This would explain why all those old cars are still going but it doesn't bode well for the future.

Sassenach wrote:So far as I'm aware (I could be wrong), the main reason why there are still all those cars in Cuba is that Castro banned private car ownership but allowed people who already owned cars to keep them so long as they were able to keep them running (and presumably to pass them on to their children). This would explain why all those old cars are still going but it doesn't bode well for the future.

I believe you are right. There are now more modern cars as the ban has been lifted (although not many people can obtain imported cars).

Most of the 50s cars I saw there 10 years ago were wrecks.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Cuban missile crisis. Cold War. Nearly ended the world. That kind of thing hurts feelings.

Yep and the missile crisis was over 50 years ago, and about the USSR v USA. The Cold War is over. Stop fighting it.

The USSR is gone. Cuba and the "Cold War spirit" it embodies, remains. If they want to join the rest of the world, they can do something to show it.

They are, and relations have thawed with Spain and many other countries as a result. One way to help Cuba do so is to cease the constant hostility.

Which attacks on the US in the last 10-15 years have been assisted by Cuba, and which by other countries?

Which attacks has Cuba ever apologized and made reparations for?

I don't know, as you haven't described any recent attacks by Cuba yet. Neither country has much of a record for apologies for attacks on the other.

You set the 10-15 year mark, I didn't. The question is this: is there any reason to simply grant Cuba amnesty?[/quote]FOR WHAT?

I set a timeframe of the last 10-15 years because that is when the USA has been most alert to foreign terror, and also because it is more current. And because it is post-Cold War. If it gives you such a hard time finding anything, by all means go back further.

As for amnesties, I think it should work both ways. Those who have planned and carried out attacks on Cuba should be treated the same.

Missile radar systems discovered aboard a North Korean-flagged ship that had last been in Cuba could be upgraded to make air-defense systems more effective at shooting down modern military aircraft, military analysts said Tuesday.

The North Korean ship was seized after inspectors found weapons system parts under sacks of sugar as it sought to cross the Panama Canal on its way to its home country, Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli said Tuesday. North Korea is under a United Nations arms embargo. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... p/2520109/

"Could" be upgraded to improve "air-defence systems".

Not that there is evidence such improvements have happened, or that it poses a threat other than to an attacker. Sure the relations with NK are a concern. So let's lead Cuba away instead of the failed policy of pushing them towards your enemies. The US was doing this in the late 50s, and since.

The irony is that Batista was backed by the Cuban Communist Party, but then the people who ousted him were ostracised before getting much of a chance to show where they stood. They had no real links to the USSR until the trade restrictions started to come in. Yes, they wanted to nationalise agriculture and other industries, and that was an affront to US interests (some of which were the result of corrupt deals with the Batista regime, of course).

Its connections to rogue regimes and its actions over the last half-century, would lead a prudent person to say "Show me."

How about you "Show me" what dastardly actions they are carrying out, first?

Or does the standard of evidence only work one way?

It is hard to prove that the Cubans are not attacking the US or their interests, as proving a negative is not always even possible. But you could help your case by informing us which actual attacks have been sponsored by or carried out by Cuba.

You have to go back 17 years to find an instance of state sponsored terrorism. But it was against Cuba.

The 1997 Cuba hotel bombings were a series of bombings of Cuban hotels, which resulted in the death of an Italian tourist, Fabio di Celmo. Targets included the Hotel Capri, Hotel Nacional de Cuba, Hotel Copacabana and the Meliá Cohiba Hotel.[1] The Cuban-born Venezuelan Luis Posada Carriles admitted organising the bombings. In a taped interview with The New York Times, Posada said: "It is sad that someone is dead, but we can't stop."[2] Posada was reportedly disappointed with the reluctance of American news organisations to report the bombing attacks, saying "If there is no publicity, the job is useless.[3]

In March 1999 Raúl Ernesto Cruz León, who Posada admitted was a mercenary under his employment, was sentenced to death by the Cuban authorities after admitting to the attacks,[3] alongside fellow Salvadoran Otto Rene Rodriguez Llerena.[4] The sentences were commuted in 2010 to 30 years in prison.[4][5] In December 2010 another Salvadoran, Francisco Chávez Abarca, was sentenced to 30 years for his part in the bombings, having confessed on television to being hired by Posada Carriles.[

Posada is still harbored in the US Fate? What should happen to him?

Hey, I know you lefties love regimes like China, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba.

Go right ahead. Line yourselves up with murdering dictatorships. Defend them. Travel to them. Maybe you can set up a time to watch some of Michael Moore's movies with the Castro brothers?

Whatever. This is a pointless waste of energy.

For you, the US is no better or worse, morally speaking, than Cuba.

That's really all I need to know.

Have a nice day.

Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, I know you lefties love regimes like China, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba.

Go right ahead. Line yourselves up with murdering dictatorships. Defend them. Travel to them. Maybe you can set up a time to watch some of Michael Moore's movies with the Castro brothers?

Whatever. This is a pointless waste of energy.

For you, the US is no better or worse, morally speaking, than Cuba.

That's really all I need to know.

Have a nice day.

It is because I have been to Cuba that I am able to say that it is not the socialist paradise that it claims to be or that some on the Left believe it to be. But it is in many ways better than some of its neighbours - and in other ways worse.

You may want to play the red-baiting game, but I don't. A lazy assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you must "love" regimes like Iran or NK may be cathartic for you, but hardly advances your case much.

I would just like you to try to substantiate your assertion that Cuba is sponsoring attacks on the USA and US interests. Because that seems to be one of the main planks of your argument against normalising relations.

The most recent incident I can find was the shooting down of planes operated by the exiled Cuban group "Brothers to the Rescue". There had been numerous complaints from Cuba to the US about airspace violations and the release of leaflets. The US authorities had also warned the group that they were taking grave risks. The group acknowledged those risks and kept flying anyway.

Even so, when the Cuban airforce shot two planes down in 1996 that was wrong: there was no attempt to escort, or warnings and one plane was shot down on the way to Cuban airspace and didn't reach it, was while the other did breach but was heading back. A third was chased back to US airspace before the Cubans headed back.

Not an attack on the US itself. Not as Cuba claims a legitimate use of force in defence. But an attack on opponents who were acting in a way they knew was dangerous and intended to destabilise the regime.

Now, rather than trading insults, which I agree is a waste of energy, would you care to provide more evidence?

danivon wrote:You may want to play the red-baiting game, but I don't. A lazy assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you must "love" regimes like Iran or NK may be cathartic for you, but hardly advances your case much.

Meh, see below.

I would just like you to try to substantiate your assertion that Cuba is sponsoring attacks on the USA and US interests. Because that seems to be one of the main planks of your argument against normalising relations.

You may want to play the right-baiting game, but I don't. A lazy assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is saying that Cuba is sponsoring attacks on the USA and US interests may be cathartic for you, but hardly advances your case much.

Cuba was removed from the list of States that sponsor terrorism by Condoleeza Rice. That doesn't mean that it doesn't or that it didn't.

Now, rather than trading insults, which I agree is a waste of energy, would you care to provide more evidence?

Oh, we could debate FARC and ETA, but you will say their support for the groups has tapered off. That's true--as Cuba's funding from Russia and Venezuela shrank or vanished, its support for terror has diminished because they have no money. It's not a question of a change of heart.

So, we're going to bail out the finances of Cuba at the point where their behavior is forcibly changed. Great idea.

Look, you believe what you want about Raul and Fidel. They are murdering thugs who are simply looking to maintain their lavish lifestyle.

The most important thing is that they are both very old...something that probably should have informed our calculations regarding Saddam Hussein...but I digress.

Doctor Fate wrote:You may want to play the right-baiting game, but I don't. A lazy assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is saying that Cuba is sponsoring attacks on the USA and US interests may be cathartic for you, but hardly advances your case much.

Except that I never said anything like that I "loved" Cuba (let alone the other countries you mentioned), whereas you wrote:

Are there any regimes with whom we deal who are more relentlessly anti-American? Not likely.

Are there any regimes with whom we deal who have helped in more attacks against the US and its interests? Probably not that we can document.

I can list several. Libya as at 2006 (when a full embassy was established). Syria (where a full embassy has been established for some time). Pakistan (whose ISI has elements that were heavily involved in the creation of the Taliban and have supported them since, but with which the USA has had friendly relations for decades). Sudan (which gave OBL and other AlQaeda figures respite, as well as Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal, and sided with Iraq in 1991, but had a US embassy for years after - and still does, albeit without an Ambassador). Then there are Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where high level support and funding for political and terror groups with extremist Islamic aims is well documented.

So, which Cuban-helped attacks beat all of that lot?

Cuba was removed from the list of States that sponsor terrorism by Condoleeza Rice. That doesn't mean that it doesn't or that it didn't.

It does go to suggest that it doesn't any more. Are you able to provide an ounce of evidence that it does?

Now, rather than trading insults, which I agree is a waste of energy, would you care to provide more evidence?

Oh, we could debate FARC and ETA, but you will say their support for the groups has tapered off. That's true--as Cuba's funding from Russia and Venezuela shrank or vanished, its support for terror has diminished because they have no money. It's not a question of a change of heart.

No, what I will say about ETA is that that is a Spanish issue, and Spain has not only normalised relations to Cuba, it has by agreement sent ETA members to Cuba.

On FARC, the IRA has had more to do with them lately, and Cuba has not only condemned the FARC use of hostage taking, but is hosting negotiations between FARC and the Colombian government.

Anyway, can you provide any evidence of actual attacks that Cuba has helped?

So, we're going to bail out the finances of Cuba at the point where their behavior is forcibly changed. Great idea.

If they are going to act based on who is funding them, then maybe it is.

Look, you believe what you want about Raul and Fidel. They are murdering thugs who are simply looking to maintain their lavish lifestyle.

Well, that may be so. As freeman points out, they won't be for long. And there is a long list of similar murderous thugs that the USA has happily dealt with over the last few decades. Look at this list:

The Kings of Saudi Arabia (and the various Emirs of several Gulf States), the Presidents of Turkmenistan , Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. The King of Morocco and Presidents of Equatorial Guinea, Chad and Uganda

That's just the current ones I could find.

I am sure there are very good reasons for all of those, but there are good reasons to deal with Cuba - decent cane sugar instead of that subsidised corn-syrup rubbish for start :-)

freeman3 wrote:The most important thing is that they are both very old...something that probably should have informed our calculations regarding Saddam Hussein...but I digress.

Although Saddam's kids were no bargain. Fidel has many sons, but he doesn't seem interested in a family dynasty.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:You may want to play the right-baiting game, but I don't. A lazy assertion that anyone who doesn't agree with you is saying that Cuba is sponsoring attacks on the USA and US interests may be cathartic for you, but hardly advances your case much.

Except that I never said anything like that I "loved" Cuba . . .

Fascinating, but my immediate response was to rickyp. If you want to be included in the "lefties" group, I guess you can still be offended. That said, I'll stick with my other response:

Whatever. This is a pointless waste of energy.

If you want to argue that Cuba is now a responsible member of the world community, feel free. All I know is that the Castro Brothers will let you down.

Feliz Navidad y vaya con queso!

Merry Xmas to you as well, but you still have not really told us what horrible attacks on the USA and her interests Cuba has helped over the years.

I don't trust Fidel or Raul at all, but demonisation of the country and insistence on maintaining a failed policy isn't really necessarily the answer.

danivon wrote:Merry Xmas to you as well, but you still have not really told us what horrible attacks on the USA and her interests Cuba has helped over the years.

I don't trust Fidel or Raul at all, but demonisation of the country and insistence on maintaining a failed policy isn't really necessarily the answer.

It's only a failed policy if one presumes the only goal was to bring them down. We could have invaded anytime during the last 20+ years and done that.

On the other hand, why enrich the banana republic dictators who refuse to grant any basic human rights to their people?

Some people think it will change by virtue of increased contact with the West. I tend to think that we should have asked for a few things--like the freedom to travel for the people of Cuba. They should be able to leave their country if they desire. Read the harrowing tale of how the Dodgers' outfielder Yasiel Puig.