CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should the trade embargo with Cuba be dissolved?
Recently the Obama administration has lifted some of the travel restrictions to Cuba in regards to family members living between the two countries. This is seen as a positive move by many foreigners but is it really?
The embargo on Cuba has been up since the early 1960s and little of its intended or publicly stated goals seem to have bean reached.
Is it time for the embargo to be dissolved and positive relations be created between the two countries?
Please explain why you choose yes or no and don't post just to say something like "they're communists" or some other meaningless answer.
The trade embargo has done little to bring about "democracy" or a noticeable change in government economic policy. This embargo has only harmed the Cuban people and family relationships between Cuban Americans and their family members still in Cuba.
Also I don’t think the reason for the trade embargo was ever to bring a better life for the Cubans, I think it was solely an attempt to combat communism because it isn’t capitalism. If communism is a failed system then why does America need to make it so difficult for it to exist, wouldn’t it naturally die out?
Maybe lifting the embargo will bring democracy to Cuba maybe it won’t but keeping it there hasn’t so far and it doesn’t look like it will unless the Cuban leaders are assassinated or a US supported/deployed dictator takes control.
Communism may not work, but it has in some form managed to prevent the nation from completely collapsing. Shouldn’t the goal of our interaction with this nation be to help it and not to dictate its economic system? If we allowed them the chance to try out communism without so much hardship placed on them then maybe they could make it work. If they couldn’t then sooner or later a different system would be demanded by the local population and they would naturally evolve to what they think is better.
The embargo is a failed relic of anti-communist rhetoric that rarely had a noble intention in the first place, keeping it around merely shows that America cares more for capitalistic imperialism than allowing people to live their own lives how they want.
well, communism is a failed system for THE PEOPLE, but the dictator lives just fine. and he decides that communism should continue. that's why it still exists there.
now, the people are not allowed to start their own business or do free trade. everything is controlled by the government, and the government seizes anything they wish to seize. that is what communism is. the people won't benefit from us trading with the government.
then there's the fact that almost every Cuban in America supports the embargo act (the ones who escaped from there at least). people are constantly leaving because they hate the system there. My own family has people who have escaped from Cuba. They support the Embargo Act because they don't want America doing deals with an evil man, such as Castro. I support their decision. I've heard the horror stories of what it's like to go to prison there. Of how the REAL hospitals treat their people. Castro doesn't deserve any of our money (any product that we buy from a Cuban business goes directly to Castro for him to distribute to who he wishes).
Wouldn't lifting the trade embargo actually encourage a more capitalistic economy?
If America could demonstrate the pros of our economy to the native population wouldn't that help the Cuban people more than leaving the embargo there?
Like you said, Castro at least has done pretty well with communism for himself and thus this trade embargo, if communism doesn't work for the people, only seems to punish the Cuban citizens and not those keeping Cuba communist.
I understand your hesitation to make trade with Cuba because where the money ultimately ends up but what i want to know is what good has the trade embargo done to make Cuba democratic or less communistic?
it keeps our money out of the hands of an evil dictator.
i do not have any hope for the Cuban government at all. By why should we do deals with an evil dictator who hurts his own people? i understand that we have done wrong in this field, but why spread it?
the trade embargo doesn't harm the Cubans. no matter what, Castro will continue to control all of the wealth and property. Money flows to him, and he decides how it will be spent. Us trading with Cuba is just doing businesses with Castro.
The other problem is that businesses aren't aloud to be brought up there. Maybe what would be good is if we could start businesses on Cuban soil which would lead to eventual capitalism, like it did with China. The problem is that Castro is strongly Communist and does not believe in this system where his people will work for corporations or, God forbid, start their own.
By why should we do deals with an evil dictator who hurts his own people?
Why not? We've installed them all over the world before. It's not about him hurting his people; it's purely ideology.
the trade embargo doesn't harm the Cubans. no matter what, Castro will continue to control all of the wealth and property.
Could you substantiate this, please?
Maybe what would be good is if we could start businesses on Cuban soil which would lead to eventual capitalism, like it did with China.
China isn't capitalist, exactly. It's still a strongly centrally controlled economy that has allowed very limited, strategic incursions of private business.
true. China has slowly gone from Communism to Fascism. a step up. sorry i wasn't specific on that point.
but, that's better than before. with the idea of making money and new innovations, the need for oppression gets old as the need for new things starts rising up. yes, China is still a totalitarian shit hole, but it's dissolving the socialist build up it once had. we're almost there.
Castro holds a communist regime. The government owns all the property and wealth, not the people.
as for the first part, why start business with him? you say "we've done it before", but that really isn't enough of a reason to do it again unless we can find a REALLY good reason to start doing again.
I'm not so sure about Fascism either, since it relies on the power of corporations. Definitely a totalitarian shit hole though :P
Castro holds a communist regime. The government owns all the property and wealth, not the people.
That doesn't really answer my question. Why do you say the embargo doesn't harm Cuban civilians?
why start business with him? you say "we've done it before", but that really isn't enough of a reason to do it again unless we can find a REALLY good reason to start doing again.
It wasn't so much meant as a reason to trade with him, but rather to point out the inconsistency in our foreign policy, and the true reason behind our actions.
Your narrative is so full of nationalistic bias and prejudice, yet somehow you seem to think of yourself as being objective.
"it keeps our money out of the hands of an evil dictator."
Wow, even for you that's bad. Whatever you think about the tyranny and the repression of freedom that has taken place in Cuba, in order to have even a shred of objectivity you have acknowledge that it doesn't even come close to the kind of repression and tyranny the US has traditionally supported (and in many cases create/manufactured), particularly in South and Central America which the US has always viewed as its own property.
"By why should we do deals with an evil dictator who hurts his own people?"
This is blatant hypocrisy of the worst kind.
"Money flows to him, and he decides how it will be spent"
You speak as if Castro lives in some palace surrounded by riches while all the people suffer in destitution, the opposite is closer to the truth.Che Guevara own son gets up for work everyday and receives no more money anyone else at the end of the week. I think you have Fidel confused with your own dictators.
The only crime Cuba ever committed was breaking away from US hegemony and actually surviving on their own, Cuba was a bordello for American business men before the revolution and the US tried to overthrow Fidel long before he was forced to align himself with the USSR (as that was the reason given for trying to bring down his regime). The Truth is the US wanted to destroy Cuba for trying to exercises its own independence, and what really worried it was its relative success, i.e. free health care at the same level as developed countries (and classically way out of line with the rest of Latin America), free education all the way to 3rd level and beyond, exporting its doctors to the 3rd world, developing biotechnology with little capital or expertise etc.
Cuba has always been a symbol of resistance in a region that has historically been crushed under your countries boot heel, Cuba's crime had nothing to do with communism, the USSR, or its "dictatorship", Cuba's crime was trying to secure its own freedom and in doing so, setting a bad example to countries that remained trapped under your countries tyranny.
That was the reason Evo Morales walked out of the counsel of the Americas (and Chavez would have too if he was there), your country has kept the Cuban people suffocated under that embargo for far too long, your country will soon be forced to lift it against its will as your power diminishes.
So I take that you don't disagree with anything I wrote?
"I was young and naive. hopefully you'll grow out of it as well."
I find your assumption that you somehow have greater experience, insight, and knowledge hilarious, it really only speaks to the size of your own ego, you know absolutely nothing about me, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to define me and thereby negate me (and thus my opinions).
"As for Castro, I have family members that have suffered under him. So really, I'm just giving you an out before you pull more shit out of your ass."
If you consider anything I wrote to be shit I would very much like to know, that's kinda the reason I wrote it. You see, I don't think what I wrote is shit, I think it is the truth, if you don;t please tell me why.
"This is an old topic. Let it go."
I acknowledge this is an old topic, I hadn;t factored that in.
Torture, political imprisonment, executions, all under orders of Castro and Che.
They are not circumstantial poorbodies. They aren't revolutionary heroes. They aren't backed into a corner.
They are cold-hearted murderers who have committed atrocities against people I know personally.
You're caught up in your anti-americanism that all you can do is take the sides of anyone who opposes the States in any way. Members of my family escaped to the States because it was the only thing they had left. They hate Cuba and they love the States and they'd never wish for me to grow up there. Especially when Che was there and fighting along side Castro.
Before I comment on what you wrote I would like to point out that none of it directly contradicts my original statement.
"Torture, political imprisonment,"
Hypocrisy. Don;t try to discredit an opponent for something your government routinely engages in. It's only terrorism when they do it, eh?
"executions, all under orders of Castro and Che."
The way I see it whether you strongly agree or strongly disagree (or anywhere in between) with the aims of the socialist revolutions that took place in 20th century, you have to acknowledge some kind of action was inevitable. I don’t think it is an unfair generalisation to say that all war (either civil or regional or international) is the result of justifiable grievances on the part of one (or more) group (or sector of society) upon another.
Then there's the issue of morality, the way I see it; morality is the product of two things: (1.) intention and (2.) result, these are what ultimately determine how an action is perceived. For instance, the Iraq war was waged based on the most ignoble motives (despite the official BS propaganda that nobody believed save a few US citizens), however, what really condemned it in the eyes of the international community wasn't simply the fact that it was illegally waged - the resulting causalities and destruction (which were massive and are still being felt, i.e. Faluja) are what really made it a heinous crime, and thus caused the US to lose so much credibility internationally. If the result was quick and painless, and actually benefited the Iraqi people, I dare say the international community would have had a selective memory on the issue of the wars legality.
The Cuban revolution was an indigenous revolt and isn't ahistorical to say it had mass support among Cuban peasants (who were the majority) - they wanted to rid the country of the crime that had led to the country being nickname: "the bordello of the Caribbean" (i.e., intention) - they wanted to create a more just and equatable society for all Cubans.
The result, well, that's debatable, but what isn;t debatable is the fact that th majority of Cubans were far better off after the revolution than before.
"They aren't revolutionary heroes."
I beg to differ.
"They are cold-hearted murderers who have committed atrocities against people I know personally"
I understand your position, hell, I even respect it, but I don't agree with it.
"You're caught up in your anti-Americanism that all you can do is take the sides of anyone who opposes the States in any way."
That simply isn't true, I have no problem with Americans, I am not anti-American, I don;t treat American people any different than anyone else, I am anti-imperialism.
I didn't jump for joy when China wiped out Tibet and killed 1 million of the nicest most peace loving people on earth. I didn;t like my lips when Putin's army raped and pillaged the break away republic of Chechnya, nor do i approve of the current Chinese exploitation Africa.
"Members of my family escaped to the States because it was the only thing they had left. They hate Cuba and they love the States and they'd never wish for me to grow up there."
They were obviously part of the upper middle class.
"They were fuckin' monsters."
Yes, much of what they did once they took power was indeed quite ruthless, but at that stage it seems to me to have been entirely necessary.
no, not really, Cubans support Castro and does not control every aspect of life in Cuba. We have a constitution that stops any leader from going too far. http://www.cubasolidarity.org.uk/democracy.htm
