Cuba gets new president

ToughOmbre · 02-25-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckn49

Look, an embargo is one thing, but that would be an act of war!

They would love her. She's farther left than anyone they've got.

TO

chuckn49 · 02-25-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToughOmbre

They would love her. She's farther left than anyone they've got.

TO

Wow! I never thought of it that way!

Konigstiger205 · 02-26-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckn49

Look, an embargo is one thing, but that would be an act of war!

jednastka · 02-27-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckn49

Certainly Canada or France or England or China or the whole rest of the world are free to trade all they want with Cuba and yet, Cuba is an economic basket case just because the US refuses to trade with them?

The problem is the US passed the Helms Burton Act to provide teeth to the embargo. Any company dealing in what is claimed to be "confiscated property" faces legal action in the US. For example, Bombardier Canada was approached at one time to assist the Cuban government is re-vamping the rail sysatem. The US government said, in no uncertain terms, they woulod never be allowed to sell in the US and all their US assests would be confiscated since the Cuban rail system is viewed to be illegally obtained via the revolution. This has by and large limited teh companies working with Cuba to those who do not have assets in or do not care to work with the US.

I know these issues first hand. Canadian companies working in Cuba are prevented from buying goods made in the US for their Canadian operations!

chuckn49 · 02-27-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jednastka

The problem is the US passed the Helms Burton Act to provide teeth to the embargo. Any company dealing in what is claimed to be "confiscated property" faces legal action in the US. For example, Bombardier Canada was approached at one time to assist the Cuban government is re-vamping the rail sysatem. The US government said, in no uncertain terms, they woulod never be allowed to sell in the US and all their US assests would be confiscated since the Cuban rail system is viewed to be illegally obtained via the revolution. This has by and large limited teh companies working with Cuba to those who do not have assets in or do not care to work with the US.

I know these issues first hand. Canadian companies working in Cuba are prevented from buying goods made in the US for their Canadian operations!

Here again, it is our right to do business with whomever we chose under whatever conditions we chose as it is Canada's right. We view Castro as our enemy.

If Canada does not, then let Canada do business with him if it is worth it to Canada to lose business with us and vice versa. Nevertheless, Castro's Cuba is not an economic basket case because of the US but because of its own government's economic policies.

If, though, you subscribe to the belief that we are the cause of Cuba's economic woes, then it would seem prudent for Castro to have mended his fences with us a long time ago.

jednastka · 02-28-2008, 12:41 PM

Odd view for a country that felt it was their right to sell oil and trade with Hitler's Germany until December 1941, in spite of what was happening in the rest of thw world.

chuckn49 · 02-28-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jednastka

Odd view for a country that felt it was their right to sell oil and trade with Hitler's Germany until December 1941, in spite of what was happening in the rest of thw world.

Why? We were not at war with Hitler until he declared war on us. In fact, it seems to be the same position Canada is taking with Cuba -- they're not your enemy (as far as you can see), so, despite your neighbor's position to the south, you trade with them.

Plus, I wouldn't forget Lend/Lease, our submarine war and other violations of our neutrality we committed in aid to our perceived allies in Britain and Canada.

pbfoot · 02-28-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuckn49

Why? We were not at war with Hitler until he declared war on us. In fact, it seems to be the same position Canada is taking with Cuba -- they're not your enemy (as far as you can see), so, despite your neighbor's position to the south, you trade with them.

Plus, I wouldn't forget Lend/Lease, our submarine war and other violations of our neutrality we committed in aid to our perceived allies in Britain and Canada.

Canada was not a recipient of Lend Lease we were a lender .
Why after 50 years to you not have some contact with Cuba , you talk to N'Korea , Lybia, etc or is it the fact the topic is volatile to the Cuban expats in Florida that it will cost votes.

chuckn49 · 02-28-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Canada was not a recipient of Lend Lease we were a lender .
Why after 50 years to you not have some contact with Cuba , you talk to N'Korea , Lybia, etc or is it the fact the topic is volatile to the Cuban expats in Florida that it will cost votes.

As a member of the British Empire, Canada benefited from Lend Lease indirectly.

We do have "some" contact with Cuba --

It could be that it is "volatile to the Cuban expats in Florida" and could "cost votes." That is the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship. In the US the people can influence their government's behaviors through their votes so a government catering to someone's voting choices is perfectly logical. In Cuba, Castro has never had to cater to his peoples' votes. Why hasn't he made contact with us?

eddie_brunette · 02-29-2008, 01:50 AM

Now this is what our ruling party thinks, but that’s all I will say, me hate politics (find it boring and predictable)

ANC: Castro a 'living legend': South Africa: Politics: News24

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 02-29-2008, 09:36 AM

Any country can do business with who they want to. We choose not to do business with Cuba. That is our right. If the rest of world thinks that is wrong, too bad. We dont tell them they cant do business with who they want to.

jednastka · 02-29-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Any country can do business with who they want to.

I could not agree more. Where the issue is with me is when a third nation becomes involved in the relationship between the first two sovereign nations, applying strong arm, bully economic tactics to prevent/limit the relationship.

chuckn49 · 02-29-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jednastka

I could not agree more. Where the issue is with me is when a third nation becomes involved in the relationship between the first two sovereign nations, applying strong arm, bully economic tactics to prevent/limit the relationship.

If you really do believe in the right of any country to do business with whomever it so chooses, then you should have no problem with the US determining the terms of trade with Cuba or Canada or Timbuktu, for that matter.

Essentially, your position seems to be that Canada has the right to choose its trading partners, Cuba in this instance, regardless of the objections of an ally, but that the ally, then, has no right to determine its trading relations with Canada as a result. That seems a little one-sided to me.

I respect Canada's right to trade with anyone they chose. In the same way, I expect my country to make its trading arrangements based on its needs and desires, too. If that means a quid pro quo with Canada for Canada's trading agreements with an enemy of the US, then that is our right. Obviously, Canada feels its trade with Cuba is more important than its trade with the US -- fine. Since we are still major trading partners with one another, our governments have decided on some form of accommodation. Should that change, I'm sure the terms will change accordingly.

jednastka · 03-01-2008, 12:12 PM

An envious position and perspective to have when one is the economic superpower with whom most of the world is forced to deal with and trade is some way or another.

It may be worth going back to look at some of the aspects of Helms Burton and its application for guidance. The intent was to provide a method to pursue foreign firms doing business both in the US and in Cuba in areas of "contested assets" by threatening their business in the US. Two cases come to mind.

There was no Cuban off-shore oil & gas development at the time of the revolution. However, A US firm was successful in getting a Florida high court ruling against a Canadian firm that is currently developing this Cuban asset on the contention that had the revolution not it would be resonable to assume that they would have had the right to develop this resource!!!

A second case is also quite illuminating. Using the intent of Helms Burton, a number of now Canadian families that were displaced due to political beliefs as a result of the American Revolution placed claims on lost and confiscated assets in New England. They lost, but the ruling was interesting. The court decided that Helms Burton only applies to revolutions, and what occurred in the late 1700s was not a "revolution", but a "war of independence"; an entirely different thing!!