Lots of people are pointing out this story about how great it was in Gitmo for at least some of the Afghan POWs.

Actually, from the way they describe their experience, despite all the whining from Human Rights Watch, it sounds like their situation was better than that of most Cubans. And they got to leave...

Just to make sure the coverage is balanced it should be pointed out that US restrictions are the reason people can't leave Cuba. Bush just over a week ago tightened travel restrictions in response to the "threat" of Castro rescinding migration accords whereby Cuban emigration rights are limited. According to the Bush administration, allowing people to leave Cube will be considered a "hostile act". In other words, if Castro allows starving people to leave the island, this will be considered an act of war.

That first commenter's name is well-chosen.

It is good to know that Mcgehee has mastered the obscure art of the ad hom attack. Now I wonder whether he can actually attempt a cogent argument of the sort that might be found outside of a grade school playground.

The situation is this: US policy is a primary reason why people are starving in Cuba. Unarmed civilians try to escape that starvation. US responds by calling this an act of war and cutting off access to the funds that would allow the people to not have to leave in the first place. If this situation is threatening to you to such an extent that you feel the need to sling insults rather than arguments, maybe you should think about why you are so threatened?

The situation is this: US policy is a primary reason why people are starving in Cuba.

Yes, right. It has nothing to do with the fact that it's a ramshackle socialist "paradise," in which there are few incentives to produce wealth, and Fidel personally controls and mismanages the economy, and that it's no longer propped up by the Soviets.

Why is it that when some one says something "cogent and heart felt" its truth, and when someone disagrees with them its an attack!! Hey farfetched, we ain't buying any today!!

Also why is it "Bush" but when we hear about him its MISTER or SENATOR Kerry, hey jackass its PRESIDENT Bush. And don't start that stolen election crap again!!!

farfetched:

AFAIK, no European country has travel restrictions on Cubans. Indeed, several of them promote tourist junkets there. Yet, Cubans don't seem to be allowed to visit there, either.

Similarly, Canada has neither trade nor travel restrictions with Cuba, yet Cubans appear to be forbidden from going to Canada.

Do you believe that it was West German restrictions that limited East German ability to depart? Or South Korean (or American) restrictions that prevent North Koreans from freely traveling?

For that matter, do you believe that it is American policy that promotes starvation in North Korea?!? Why is it that capitalist economies (including China's) are able to feed themselves, yet socialist ones (USSR, North Korea, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Cuba) are unable to?

I'm also amused by someone who whines about supposed ad hominem attacks, then says:

If this situation is threatening to you to such an extent that you feel the need to sling insults rather than arguments, maybe you should think about why you are so threatened?

Amateur psychologizing. If we don't agree with him (or her, no way to know which with anonymous cowards like this), it's not because we think he's wrong. No, we must be "threatened."

You just keep speaking "truth" to power, sport.

Dean
"Do you believe that it was West German restrictions that limited East German ability to depart?"

Oh, come now. Everyone knows that the so-called defectors were professional-class East Germans (doctors mostly) who left the Workers Paradise just _after_ medical school and just _before_ it was time to start paying back the State for their expensive educations.

Rand,

Your ability to defeat a strawperson argument is most astounding. I applaud you.

Upon actually reading what I wrote, you will note that it says US policy is a primary reason, not the reason, or even the only primary reason. You are obviously aware that there are multiple causes for the current standoff, it is somewhat disappointing that you seem to be limiting your discussion to those that support our present policy. I absolutely agree that Castro's decision to ally with the USSR rather than the US was a primary reason why Cuba is in its present condition.

Before you went jumping to conclusions, I was making a point as to the illogic of calling the movement of unarmed civilians an act of war (or "a hostile act" to quote Bush). If you have any comments there, I would love to hear them, sport.

In re the virtue of anonymity; as much as I value your personal approval, I'd rather be employable in a republican government. Before you allow your ego to become any larger note that this site is relevant only in that a google search for a persons name will bring up comments here.

Dean,

You will notice that I said that US policy was a reason Cubans are starving, not that it was the reason cubans have difficulties leaving Cuba, although US policy does play a role there too (again, notice that I said 'a role', not is the cause). The official US policy is to turn back any Cuban refugees that are intercepted before they reach the shore of the US. As far as I know, the US never turned back any refugees that attempted to flee from East Germany or North Korea. And remember, we are turning them away even after they are within our territorial waters. We are not turning them away to honor any Cuban regulations. No, we turn them away because it would cost florida money.

Before Steve goes and calls my argument heartfelt again, I should mention that I dont give a damn personally whether any one of these people makes it here or not. I have problems with US policy because it is wasteful. The current sanctions cut off our access to an entire market while also causing pain to millions of individuals. If you bother to look, you will find that there are several million cubans waiting to eat american grain and rice (rather than the vietnamese rice that they currently have to import at unnecessarily high prcies). If you also bother to look you will notice that american farmers are not facing fantastic economic times. Cuba is not the ultimate solution to american farm troubles, but according to a coalition of farm associations that want sanctions lifted, opening access would certainly help. I know my ideas are farfetched, but maybe we should help Americans in a way that will also happen to help Cubans?

And no, I dont beleive any of the scenarios you throw out for lack of an actual argument to defend the US sanctions. Socialism is stupid for many reasons, but unless we really think Cuba will re-ignite the global red spread risk, there is no reason to deny americans a market. Before someone goes shouting terrorism it should be mentioned that the pentagon's official position for almost a decade now has been that Cuba poses no military threat to the US.

Steve,

Your interest in the dignity of the presidency is most touching. You can take heart in the knowledge that I could care less about JFKII as well. Clarke had potential and if Powell would run he could be brilliant, but oh well. I know it might be hard to believe, but some of us are actually thinking about more than the party line.

Course I think Heinlein would have argued that a response such as go to hell would be all the ad homs above deserved (only the ad homs, the arguments are addressed above). Maybe I should learn his brevity.

Upon actually reading what I wrote, you will note that it says US policy is a primary reason

I did read what you wrote. I know what the word "primary" means. Apparently you don't.

And for what it's worth, I disagree with the Cuba policy. I think that the embargo should end, because I suspect that freeing up trade will undermine Castro much more effectively than the embargo (particularly since it's proven a spectacular failure). So if you're looking for someone to defend administration policy, you'll have to seek elsewhere.

But to say that US policy is a cause of starving Cubans, let alone the primary one (and no, there's no such thing as a primary one), is complete nonsense. To the degree that Cubans are starving, they are being starved by Castro's Stalinist economic policies. Cuba would be quite capable of feeding itself, if the market were allowed to work there.

If you look up primary, you will note that it can also be correctly used as a synonym for immediate or direct. Both concepts which allow for plural forms. I acknowledge that my notions of causality are more fuzzy than most so I'll certainly accept blame for the lack of clarity, if not the subsequent overreaction. I was never looking to pick a fight.

If by allowing the market to work you mean allowing access to goods and capital flows then I agree completely. But before any market can function, Cubans need access to gasoline and basic goods. All Im saying is give credit and blame where it is due. But that is just my take on it.

Brian Said:

"Oh, come now. Everyone knows that the so-called defectors were professional-class East Germans (doctors mostly) who left the Workers Paradise just _after_ medical school and just _before_ it was time to start paying back the State for their expensive educations."

Who is everyone?? And where do they live?? One of the best stories about defectors was a family who built a hot air ballon. In fact they built 2, the first one failed and they had to start over. That guy was not a doctor, he was a mechanic or tradesman or some such. Dean, do you really think that all the defectors who ran from behind the iron cutrtain, for almost 50 years were doctors, or lawyers or indian chiefs? If you do it shows your true misunderstanding of the human spirit to be free.

Dean do a Google search on the Iron Curtain, or Berlin Wall. I looked at just 3. It says, what I already knew, THOUSANDS of people escaped. I found this on one of the sites I looked at,

"Of the 100 plus murders of the wall the most infamous is Peter Fechter who was only 18 when he was shot and left to bleed to death on August 18th 1962."

Dean how many 18 Y/O doctors do you know? So we know historically, verifiable, over 100 people were shot. All of them were doctors and professional people? I think not, more importantly, I actually know not. Brian study some history, those of us who saw the wall go up, and then saw it come down, know better than to believe your premise.

Steve:

I think you need to take a look at who said what. Brian is the one who claims that it was all doctors who were defecting. I made no such claim (nor would I, since that's clearly ludicrous).

Indeed, my comment, which was aimed at "he who has long handles" was to dispute the idea that the US was responsible for the food conditions in Cuba, or the (in)ability to depart.

farfetched (or whatever your name is):

The VERY FIRST LINE in your first comment:

Just to make sure the coverage is balanced it should be pointed out that US restrictions are the reason people can't leave Cuba.

Forgive me for concluding, based on your comments, that you were suggesting "it [US policy] was the reason cubans have difficulties leaving Cuba." I shall have to remember to take the Kerry-esque approach to divining what you REALLY meant to say, regardless of what you actually write.

But it nonetheless begs the question: Cuba can (and does) have economic relations with the rest of the world. In the absence of a blockade, are you seriously suggesting that Cuba's food woes are primarily our fault? (And before you do the dance of "it's partly our fault, for various values of 'partly,'" that's about as useful as noting that Trinidadian or Andorran policy probably also has something to do w/ it.) Your comment suggests that the United States bears a substantial part of the responsibility, but you provide no evidence that such is the case.

Dean,

You have definitely demonstrated the ability to read the first line of my postings and I do appreciate that much. How bout we take that next step and look at the rest of what I write?

For the fourth time, Im going to throw out the actual issue I was bringing up, just to see if it sticks. Bush responded to Castro's "threat" to allow his people to leave the country by calling it a "hostile act" and strengthening the existing sanctions. Regardless of who caused the current situation, castro was taking an action that would allow people to leave cuba (admittedly for his own gain, Castro probably wanted to instigate exactly the sort of response bush made, thus reinforcing the notion of the evil yankee threat that keeps him in power) and Bush played right into his hands by punishing the cuban people by cutting off access to dollars that would go directly to them (tourism is the best way to ensure that dollars go straight to the citizens rather than through castro corporations).

Now for the question of how the US effects travel from Cuba and the general economy. First off, go back and actally read the words that came after the first sentences of my posts. Notice the official policy to turn back refugees from cuba. Given the fact that most refugees come over here via overloaded boats and floatation devices, its not so hard to stop just about all of them before they get here. As to the brilliant European/Canadian escape plan youve mapped out, I have serious doubts as to whether it is a good idea to attempt to float from cuba to europe when there is a high casualty rate just involving attempts to reach the US. How about you go check that out and let us know how it turns out? There are certainly flights leaving cuba regularly, but it occurs to me that at the point that a cuban could afford a plane ticket to europe in dollars or (even worse given exchange rates) euros, they would not be having trouble feeding themselves.

Now the deeper question of the cause of the cuban economic crisis. You seem to be under the impression that blockades are the only way to influence trade with another nation. Perhaps you should look into methods of economic manipulation in use after the 1800's. The geniuses in the state department have come up with a radical new idea called an extraterritorial sanction. The rumor is that it will actually allow one state to effect the economic relations of another state; and without stringing boats across harbors no less! Heres the basic idea: we threaten to cut off access to the US market to any company trading with Cuba and personally punish any businessman who actually travels to the US who is involved in such trade. Amazingly enough, most companies value the US market more than they do the Cuban market. The companies that are left over (remember the vietnamese rice the cubans are eating) get to charge higher prices than they would otherwise be feasible in an open market and generally face higher costs in delivering goods due to geographical distance. Youll also remember a reference to gasoline in the above posts. I think we can agree that fuel for the propulsion of vehicles is somewhat helpful for a market economy. The US embargo is particularly good at keeping out oil. Certainly some still gets in, but not nearly in the amounts, or at the prices, that would allow for a distribution infrastructure.

If that isnt clear enough just let me know and Id be glad to explain the situation further.

Somebody help me with my failing memory. Didn't Castro do something like this before? Didn't he empty his prisons of real criminals which subsequently became a real problem for Florida? If so, wouldn't that be an act of aggresion? Just wondering?

Thanks ken, thats a good point, and I was waiting for someone to put that together. That is exactly why I beleive Castro made the declaration as a way of instigating Bush into reinforcing the sanctions (this is not the first time this sort of brinksmanship has resulted in sanctions tightening). However, I have seen no indication that Castro was planning on emptying out any prisons. From what I have seen, the government (or at least the Florida state government) is simply concerned with the massive cost to deal with a large wave of refugees (the "threat" of a refugee influx is one of the traditional justifications for keeping the current sanction regime in place).

I am not trying to paint Castro as a good guy. I'm just trying to point out ways the US can use its power to break the cycle of stupidity (i.e. just gradually loosen the sanctions, starting with tourism and food sales; let the market, and time, take down Castro).