It’s important to remember, however, that FDR’s vision of being neighborly meant that the U.S. would merely stop direct military interventions in Latin America, while reserving the right to create and prop up dictators, arm and train unpopular regional militaries, promote economic dominance through free trade and bank loans, conspire with right-wing groups, etc…

And although Obama’s policy towards Latin America has a similar subversive feeling to it, many of FDR’s methods of dominance are closed to him. Decades of U.S. “good neighbor” policy in Latin America resulted in a continuous string of U.S. backed military coups, broken-debtor economies, and consequently, a hemisphere-wide revolt.

Many of the heads of states that Obama mingled with at the Summit of the Americas came to power because of social movements born out of opposition to U.S. foreign policy. The utter hatred of U.S. dominance in the region is so intense that any attempt by Obama to reassert U.S. authority would result in a backlash, and Obama knows it.

Bush had to learn this the hard way, when his pathetic attempt to tame the region led to a humiliation at the 2005 Summit, where for the first time Latin American countries defeated yet another U.S. attempt to use the Organization of American States (O.A.S.), as a tool for U.S. foreign policy.

But while Obama humbly discussed hemispheric issues on an “equal footing” with his Latin American counterparts at the recent Summit of Americas, he has subtly signaled that U.S. foreign policy will be business as usual.

The least subtle sign that Obama is toeing the line of previous U.S. governments — both Republican and Democrat — is his stance on Cuba. Obama has postured as being a progressive when it comes to Cuba by relaxing some travel and financial restrictions, while leaving the much more important issue, the economic embargo, firmly in place.

When it comes to the embargo, the U.S. is completely unpopular and isolated in the hemisphere. The U.S. two-party system, however, just can’t let the matter go.

The purpose of the embargo is not to pressure Cuba into being more democratic: this lie can be easily refuted by the numerous dictators the U.S. has supported in the hemisphere, not to mention dictators the U.S. is currently propping up all over the Middle East and elsewhere.

The real purpose behind the embargo is what Cuba represents. To the entire hemisphere, Cuba remains a solid source of pride. Defeating the U.S. Bay of Pigs invasion while remaining fiercely independent in a region dominated by U.S. corporations and past government interventions has made Cuba an inspiration to millions of Latin Americans. This profound break from U.S. dominance — in its “own backyard” no less — is not so easily forgiven.

There is also a deeper reason for not removing the embargo. The foundation of the Cuban economy is arranged in such a way that it threatens the most basic philosophic principle shared by the two-party system: the market economy (capitalism).

And although the “fight against communism” may seem like a dusty relic from the cold war era, the current crisis of world capitalism is again posing the question: is there another way to organize society?

Even with Cuba’s immense lack of resources and technology (further aggravated by the U.S. embargo), the achievements made in healthcare, education, and other fields are enough to convince many in the region that there are aspects of the Cuban economy — most notably the concept of producing to meet the needs of all Cubans and NOT for private profit — worth repeating.

Hugo Chavez has been the Latin American leader most inspired by the Cuban economy. Chavez has made important steps toward breaking from the capitalist economic model and has insisted that socialism is “the way forward” — and much of the hemisphere agrees.

This is the sole reason that Obama continues the Bush-era hostility towards Chavez. Obama, it is true, has been less blunt about his feelings towards Chavez, though he has publicly stated that Chavez “exports terrorism” and is an “obstacle to progress.” Both accusations are, at best, petty lies. Chavez drew the correct conclusion of the comments by saying:

“He [Obama] said I’m an obstacle for progress in Latin America; therefore, it must be removed, this obstacle, right?”

It’s important to point out that, while Obama was “listening and learning” at the Summit of Americas, the man he appointed to coordinate the summit, Jeffrey Davidow, was busily spewing anti-Venezuelan venom in the media.

This disinformation is necessary because of the “threat” that Chavez represents. The threat here is against U.S. corporations in Venezuela, who feel, correctly, that they are in danger of being taken over by the Venezuelan government, to be used for social needs in the country instead of private profit. Obama, like his predecessor, believes that such an act would be against “U.S. strategic interests,” thus linking the private profit of mega-corporations acting in a foreign country to the general interests of the United States.

In fact, this belief that the U.S. government must protect and promote U.S. corporations acting abroad is the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, not only in Latin America, but the world.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13281

If I am banging my head against a wall is it better for me to bang less often, or just stop?

What do we have to show for it?

I know, Barack Obama can denounce Cuba’s human rights record during a stop in Guantanamo Bay!

Perhaps when we’re a few years removed from Bush, Cheney, Guantanamo, Bybee, etc., we’ll be in a position where the President of the United States lecturing human rights violators will accomplish something. Right now, we have to build up to that.

Do don’t see a lot of Jamaicans rigging together tire flotillas in hopes of escaping Kingston.

If Castro hadn’t been in power then Cuba would very likely look like Jamaica does today
Or like Peurto Rico. Or the Dominican Republic. Or Mexico. Or Aruba. Or Isla Noneofourdamnbusinesswhattheydo. We didn’t create Castro, but our actions have kept him in power.

More doctors! The perfect excuse for oppressive soul-crushing communism.

Communism is crime.

4) The Cubans I’ve spoken to seem to be of the opinion that one of the first effects of dropping the embargo will be the collapse of any degree of quality control in the Cuban cigar industry. They are already selling all the cigars they can make (if not slightly more), and having significant quality control problems with their most popular lines. So, expanding into the American market too fast could easily cause the near-collapse of the only industry Cuba has that produces anything anybody wants.

If Cuba used free market principles, the price would rise to meet the demand, and quality control would remain high.

Then again, if more Americans tried authentic Cubans, the demand would probably subside quite a bit. The fact that “Cuban cigars” carry a premium despite declining quality (most Dominicans and some Hondurans kick their butts!) shows that people are paying for the myth, not the actual quality. It’s the “attraction of the illicit” in action.

By the way, I hope everyone here realizes that the American embargo can’t be blamed for Cuba’s economic woes. There is exactly one country that doesn’t trade with Cuba: us. The entire rest of the world trades freely with Cuba; that they remain mired in hapless poverty is not our fault.

And yes, I do support establishing free trade with Cuba (it would neuter Castro’s “victim” status), while simultaneously condemning Castro’s policies that keep the Cuban people in abject poverty.

Obama seems to have it bass-ackwards.

You’re welcome! But I beg to differ – perhaps it only demonstrates that there isn’t a self-respecting human being who happens to be a politician in the country. But that’s hardly a controversial position.

I’m glad that YOU seem to have Obama all figured out. I’d like to know the manufacturer of that crystal ball, because I’m having a hard enough time figuring out which policies that Obama had _explicitly_ endorsed during his campaign are policies he intends to keep. I wouldn’t even begin to know how to figure out your six, unspoken “suspicions” regarding Obama’s “true beliefs.”

Would we all like to see Obama do a complete reversal on the inherited precedents regarding Cuba? Of course!

But it can’t happen. And you know that.

Obama has opened a small humanitarian and economic doorway to Cuba. After almost 50 years of open hostility, he has allowed for a foothold. This is exactly the right move.

He can’t denounce the Cuban government. It would require an equal–or greater–response from the Cuban government and we would be back where we started (if not farther into the hole).

The appropriate approach to Cuba is slow and well-defined: First, allow Cubans in the US to visit their families: It’s an humanitarian gesture which can’t be painted with a partisan or politically-aggressive brush. Second, open up trade with the nation: Liberals view it as an easing of hostilities, and conservatives view it as an expansion of US economic influence; both sides can portray it as a win.

Only after the US has firmly entrenched itself into the community and economy of Cuba can the President (whomever that may be at that point) step up and openly insult the Cuban government. At any point before that, the Cuban government can shut us out and paint us with any evil brush they choose.

A denunciation of Cuban human rights policy at this point would gain us nothing and hurt us substantially.

We want to teach the Cubans, not conquer them.

As for those who say we need to free the Cuban people first, I hope you will be consistent and refuse to consume oil coming from Venezeula and the Middle East, refuse to buy anything manufactured in China or Vietnam, and advocate for complete non-engagement with Russia.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103276152

NPR does a “what if” marijuana were legalized.

Has anyone considered the growing US involvement in the Mexican Drug War as a deliberate way to advance the drug war here at home? If we have soldiers on the ground in Mexico fighting an actual war against the drug cartels what new domestic prosecutions would that open up for users/suppliers? Treason? Trading with the enemy?

That’s an understatement…but very well summarized.

I always thought that if I were Castro, I’d thank America every day for making it very easy to stay in power. Every American policy toward Cuba is as if it were designed by Castro himself.

We do need to pursue a less isolationist approach to Cuba, but it ought to be one that gives more freedom and access to the Cuban people, not one that legitimizes, even a little bit, the boot heel that’s been crushing them for a generation.

A generation? Try 2-2.5 generations.