Talk:United States embargo against Cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States embargo against Cuba article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Birds
Cuba Portal
United States embargo against Cuba is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba.
Cuba To-do:
United States embargo against Cuba was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on November 14, 2004.

For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

Contents

[edit] Opening comments

The title "Cuban embargo" suggests the embargo is by Cuba against someone else when the opposite is the case. Also, given that the article is about the US embargo there's no reason not to have the US in the title (no other countries are embargoing Cuba). AndyL 21:41, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)carl

[edit] in congress

I'm a political vasectomy reporter in DC and have actually covered the recent attempts by Congress to lift the embargo (unsuccessful). I'd be glad to contribute an informational section on recent happenings in Congress. Katefan0 23:42, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

    • added. Katefan0 00:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] direct contradiction

This article states that there was no compensation offered for nationalized properties. The History of Cuba article directly contradicts this as compensation was offered:

"In compensation the Cuban government offered to pay the landholders based on the tax assessment values for the land."

This statement is acurate and the statement in the article is not.

  • There is another contradiction. Towards the end, the article states that there is a ban against American citizens travelling to Cuba because George W. Bush has repeatedly vetoed attempts by Congress to relax restrictions on that nation. But in the section on "Embargo", it is stated that since 30 June 2004 there is no ban on such travel per se. ChrisWinter 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, there is no ban on travel per se, but there is such a restrictive ban on spending money there as to effectively constitute a travel ban, except for those who are (for example) guests of the Cuban government. It is definitely an effective ban on tourism and, unlike earlier U.S. administrations, the Bush administration has routinely been investigating to find and prosecute violators. - 19:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion from COTW nomination

These comments were posted to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week while this article was nominated there. Gentgeen 15:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A very contentious issue in U.S. forign relations doesn't even have a stub. This title might not be the best, feel free to suggest others. Gentgeen 07:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Is "against" the most common preposition used? maybe "on", "of" or "towards" may be better--Confuzion 11:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • "Of" is the much more common one for every reference I have ever heard. - Taxman 04:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
        • Google Test:
          • "U.S. embargo against Cuba": 3,740 hits
          • "U.S. embargo on Cuba": 2,770 hits
          • "U.S. embargo of Cuba": 1,910 hits
          • "U.S. embargo toward Cuba": 8 hits
          • "U.S. embargo towards Cuba": 16 hits
          • ""Cuban embargo": 12,000 hits
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:26, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
I support the simpler Cuban embargo with the other topics as redirects. - Davodd 19:44, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Support that as a title. Do any other nations have an embargo of Cuba? If so, the article could also deal with them. Warofdreams 14:06, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would also support that title. It's less likely to promote edit warring. - Taxman 17:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The embargo is perpetrated by the US. To call it a Cuban embargo IMO expresses a US-centric view. I doubt that it would occur to a Cuban to call it a Cuban embargo. While the shorter expression "Cuban embargo" is of course often used as a shorthand, especially inside the US, the above Google statistics are misleading (no criticism intended -- thanks for producing them!). Compare:
    "US embargo" Cuba: 30,400 hits
    "US trade embargo" Cuba: 7,200 hits
    "US economic embargo" Cuba: 3,320 hits
    "US economic sanctions" Cuba: 2,850 hits
Of course we should redirect "Cuban embargo" to the page, but IMO using this as a title would be POV. Fpahl 21:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Following WP convention, it should be "U.S." instead of "US" since Americans use the periods. :-) Davodd 23:32, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder :-). I follow that convention on article pages, but I would have thought that I can write how I'm used to on a talk page? BTW, it's people from the U.S. who use the periods. ;-) Fpahl 08:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support what Fpahl said about the title. It is a U.S. led embargo of Cuba and should be titled as such. Oska 07:46, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

The title "Cuban embargo" suggests that Cuba has imposed an embargo when the opposite is the case. AndyL 21:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • There's a small article under Helms-Burton Act that we could use. The articles on Cuba and Fidel Castro refer to the embargo only in passing. Fpahl 09:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Should U.S. embargo against Cuba be a redirect to Helms-Burton Act with that article expanded? Filiocht 09:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • no. The Helms-Burton Act became law in 1996, while the US embargo dates back to the 1960s. Gentgeen 10:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A list of external links that we can use in the article:
    A timeline of votes by the UN General Assembly
    A 2001 report by the Cato Institute
    A timeline of the embargo
    • How about U.S.-Cuban Embargo? NeoJustin 02:41, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • No. That implies incorrectly that the embargo is bilateral. Shorne 17:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • When I voted this was at 40+ before the listed requisite date. Now the date gets moved to the right and the vote requirement pushed up again, even though it already passed. That seems very odd. — RJH 23:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It is not the number of votes required for the article to be selected as COTW, but rather the number of votes required for the nomination to avoid being pruned, and the date when that number of votes is required. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End moved comments

[edit] Article name

See the discussion above: where should this article live? I think we should use "United States" rather than "U.S.", and "against" seems more appropriate than "on", "of" or "toward(s)", which would produce United States embargo against Cuba. Whichever we use, the title should be consistent with the lead paragraph. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, too many articles are using US in their title rather than the appropriate expansion--ZayZayEM 02:50, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban American

I made a start on a Cuban American article, which I think is closely linked to this subject. There's a lot more that could be said... -- RJH 17:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Biilboard

Do we have a photo of the billboard in Havana facing the U.S. interests section? That would be a great illustration for this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Support

The article mentions twice that a lot of support for the embargo comes from the Cuban American community. Can anyone please explain why? It makes sense that those who came to the U.S. would be those least happy under Castro's rule and thus most opposed to him. At the same time it seems like the economic embargo would cause hardship for friends and relatives back in Cuba. Isomorphic 14:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Cuban American community is led by the older generation of anti-Castroites who left Cuba shortly after 1959 and established an anti-Castro movement in Miami supporting (and participating) in attempts to overthrow Castro such as the Bay of Pigs. There is evidence that more recent economic (rather than political) refugees from Cuba are less supportive of the embargo or, at least, are more likely to circumvent it by trying to send money and goods to their families etc but despite possibly being less supportive they are not vocal in opposition to the Cuban American leadership for a variety of reasons such as fear of ostricism by the community etc. AndyL 14:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In support of what AndyL said, older Cuban-Americans tend to be extremely hard-line. But the younger generation of Cuban-Americans (many born here of refugee parents) care much less about sticking it to Castro, presumably because they never lived under his rule. Katefan0 15:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well, neither did the older ones, because most of them already left shortly after he came to power, right? DirkvdM July 2, 2005 06:01 (UTC)

The older, conservative leadership of the Miami-based Cubans is very organized, very anti-Castro, and very hardline: so much so that in the Miami area it can be physically dangerous to voice dissenting opinons. There is a lot more openly expressed variety in the views of the Cubans in Greater New York. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Who does the Cuban Embargo hurt or help?

I was raised in South America as well as in North America. I understand some of the perspectives of the Latin culture, the American Culture and the Cuban in the US culture as well as the Cuban in the Island of Cuba culture. But I am still puzzle if we in North America understand who does the embargo help or hurt? on who is trying to benefit from this embargo...I live in Miami for more than 20 years and I happen to socialize mostly with Cubans, Cuban Americans and American Cubans and their answer is that it hurts Fidel, but then some Cubans from Miami turn around set up a tire maker company in China and sell to Cuba (The Island)...and they sit on top of the Cuban American National Foundation...and if you say anything about it..they will brand you and expose you as a Communist..! does that make you wonder??? By the way one of the strongest PAC's in DC is the CANF.

Well there is a criticism that the embargo benefits Castro by giving him something to rally the people around and against. Shouldn't be difficult to find analysts who have been quoted saying that and putting it in the criticism question. AndyL 19:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

entering the words: embargo helps castro returns a number of hits. such as http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii991146.html AndyL 20:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can official trade with the US be possible under the embargo? Does this only take the form of 'aid', like selling medical stuff? And does it amount to anything (relative to the total economies of the US and Cuba respectively)? DirkvdM July 2, 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Pieces of the embargo have been chipped away in the last decade or so.The US currently engages in some limited trade with Cuba on a cash and carry basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.169.20 (talk • contribs) 2 Nov 2005

[edit] Problematic recent paragraph cut

There may be material here worth getting into the article, but not in this state, so I've brought this over here for discussion.

Some Americans are perplexed by the criticism; they point out that every other country in the world is free to trade with Cuba. Also, some see Cuba as a bad neighbor, or even a rogue state. Cuba has been named as an "outpost of tyranny" by the Bush administration. As the United States government agreed to rule out military intervention the end of the Cuban Missle Crisis, Americans feel they must use economic means to bring liberal democracy to Cuba.
  1. "Some Americans are perplexed...they...": Some Americans...they... is pure weasel-words here. Who? Cite. Otherwise, this is just smuggled-in POV
  2. "Cuba has been named as an 'outpost of tyranny' by the Bush administration." This just reiterates, in the criticisms section, part of the argument for the embargo.
  3. "Americans feel". Beyond weasel words. Suggests national unanimity.
  4. liberal in liberal democracy is linked to Neoconservatism in the United States. This seems an inappropriate link. Specifically neoconservative democracy under the guise of liberal democracy?

Jmabel | Talk 02:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuban brandy?

... rich and powerful men are often shown to have their own personal stock of Cuban brandy and cigars.... Surely, that has to be rum. There may be Cuban brandy, but it's the rum (made from sugar-cane) that's famous. I've changed that, but if I'm wrong feel free to revert. DirkvdM 14:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sure you're right. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the Rum is famous, However the Rich and Powerful men bit sounds naff anyway. --130.36.75.21 09:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Soviet Union and unrealistic trade-prices

The article states: "The Soviet Union again stepped in by offering Cuba unrealistic trade-prices, mainly for the sugar they bought and oil they sold them." I'm removing this POV reference, data doesn't support the trade prices being unrealistic. Compared to US preferential contract agreements, they were actually far more realistic. Whereas the US always offered more than its markets would support to countries under preferential sugar agreements, the USSR consistently met the contractual prices which it agreed to, usually within one percent of the decided contract price. --Erik Garrison 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The oil prices certainly were unrealistic by all accounts... AnonMoos 01:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helms Burton Act of 1996

The cause of such legislation to further enforce the trade embargo happened on Feb. 25, 1996, when Cuban air force jets shot down a civilan plane with 12 Cuban Americans, all killed while going to Cuba on a humanitarian relief airlift. I'm suprised the article failed to mention that, because the plane shotdown caused uproar in the U.S. government and the Cuban exile community. --207.200.116.131 15:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

For anyone working on this and trying to follow it through: the details of the shooting down of the plane can be found at Brothers to the Rescue. I would not describe the previous paragraph as a particularly accurate characterization of Brothers to the Rescue or a balanced account of what happened on that date. Not that I endorse what the Cubans did, but the case is nowhere near this clearcut. But I think it is correct that it should be mentioned here, because it was a factor in Helms-Burton, and undercut Clinton's efforts at rapprochement with Castro. - Jmabel | Talk 04:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact of Council Regulation (No 2271/96)

I would like to see support for the statement that law passed by the European Parliament in 1996 making it illegal for EU citizens to obey the Helms-Burton act "virtually eliminated any weight the act had over EU citizens". Lawyer2b 12:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it like the Canadian law against Helms-Burton - generally ignored and never applied ? - Beardo 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I see this was recently moved from Category:History of Cuba to Category:Cuban Revolution. I'm not sure that is appropriate: after all, the embargo, in one form or another, has now lasted for over a third of the total history of Cuba as a country independent of Spain. I tend to think of the Revolution as the active fighting in the late 1950s and maybe down as far as about 1968. After that, Cuba is a Communist state, but not a state in a process of ongoing revolution. - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A lot of articles were moved to that category. Even the Mariel Boatlift is now categorised under Category:Cuban Revolution! I guess the user who did it was trying to break down the history of Cuba articles into eras and couldn't think of a better name. Any suggestions? --Zleitzen 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of "Revolution" in its broadest sense. Not just the rebellion and change of government, but the continuing control of the country by those who profess to be adhering to the revolution, as well as continuing opposition to it. Much like the Mexican Revolution that began in 1911, with warfare continuing into the late 1920s, might be thought of as having continued on until the PRI lost complete power--only recently. Thanks Hmains 03:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm racking my brains for a better term to cover historical events post '59 and am struggling. Perhaps the articles that specifically refer to the Cuban revolution 53-59 could be Category:Cuban Revolution - and after that could be called Category:Revolutionary Cuba I don't know? I'd need to look at how the history of other nations are divided - which is usually no help at all when compared to frustratingly anomalous Cuba  :) --Zleitzen 04:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Another problem is that although on wikipedia we use the term Cuban revolution to mean the ousting of Batista - the rebellion against Machado in the 1930s and even the wars against the Spanish were also called revolutions and the participants revolutionaries. Sorry to muddy the waters.--Zleitzen 04:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What about "Castro-era Cuba"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The US articles are categorised by date, see Category: History of the United States (1988–present). Perhaps the best approach would be to do the same and have Category: History of Cuba (1950–present)?--Zleitzen 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete thoughts in Criticism

I have a problem with this sentence:

"Left-wing and more radical critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba, including Noam Chomsky, argue that the embargo was put in place to prevent Castro's socialist program from succeeding and serving as a model for other Latin American countries, thus having a domino effect."

This seems to be an incomplete thought - their argument that the purpose of the embargo is to impede the socialist cuban state doesnt elaborate to say why they thought either this purpose or the actions taken to meet this purpose are invalid. Can someone add this or clairify the position?

Also, these two statements need to be merged in some way:

"... The embargo may even be seen as counterproductive since it allows the Cuban government to blame the US for every problem in Cuba.

...

Some conservative critics argue that the embargo actually helps Castro more than it hurts him by giving him a scapegoat he can use to blame for all of Cuba's problems, as well as hiding from the Cuban population the economic fruits of capitalist democracy."

Mleinart 07:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the potential for merging the latter. As for the former, I don't think we need to hammer everything in with a mallet, the point seems perfectly clear. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A former Prime Minister of Spain has written that the embargo is Castro's greatest ally, as it perpetuates the regime and, if lifted, Castro would lose his presidency in three months.[1] (from my embargo file when I was writing this article) Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 13:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Present level of U.S. exports of food to Cuba

Food has been rationed in Cuba since 1962 [2]. However, food exports of food and related materials from the U.S to Cuba $ (US)340,433,442 in 2006.[3] El Jigue 3-18-07208.65.188.149 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ US embargo of Cuba is Castro's 'great ally', says former Spanish PM. Caribbean Net News (April 21 2005). Retrieved on 2006-05-20.
  2. ^ Hugo L. Sanchez “La Voz de Asturias” 3-14-07 [1] 2007
  3. ^ 2007 U.S-Cuba Trade and Economic Council Incorporated [2] 2006

[edit] "Tobacco" plants photo

I am a cuban, and I am almost (to be polite, but I am sure) the plants in the photo are NOT of tobacco. This is not the end of the world but looks innacurate.


Those plants are not tobacco. I removed the picture. I'm not sure if the text of the caption should be added to the article: "In the new millennium, the US Dept. of Justice modified its original embargo on Cuban products to allow importation of a limited amount of Cuban cigars when returning from a licensed trip to Cuba. Effective 2007, however, the United States has once again made it illegal for US nationals to purchase or consume Cuban cigars, in Cuba, or elsewhere, whether licensed or not." 70.249.215.65 03:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disappeared and Assassinated

I don't know about the mention of disappeared and assassinated. Castro probably killed and "disappeared" lots of people, but the article cited as proof doesn't have anything to do with the embargo. Most of the "numerous" cases (29) happened after the embargo started (I saw 2 before), the entire article is based on another article (a book by some Armando fellow), and no mention is given to any source documents. I think the passage belongs to the article about Cuban human rights. --200.222.30.9 18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] point of picture?

I don't see the point of having the "Bush=fascist" billboard picture at the top of the article. It is irrelevant to the embargo itself, and serves more as propaganda than as explanation.

75.116.147.179 09:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as people (Cuban, American or otherwise) might hate Bush, it has absolutely nothing to do with the embargo, anyone opposes deleting that picture? --200.222.30.9 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Source: therealcuba.com

This website is not an accurate source for anything. It's complete propaganda and has no credibility whatsoever which leads me to believe that whomever would quote this website has no credibility either, or the capacity to write a fair and balanced encyclopedia article.

[edit] confiscated vs nationalized

So, a couple people are editing back and forth about whether the term used should be "confiscated" or "nationalized". The edit summaries are encouraging discussion on this page, but I don't see such a discussion (even from the editor pushing use of the discussion page...)

It seems pretty clear to me that both terms have a connotation of a bias in one direction or another. "Confiscated" is probably the worse of the two, but not by much. I'd suggest checking a thesaurus to find a word with more neutral connotations. Some ideas from thesaurus.com include "sieze" or something to the effect of "assume ownership of". In fact, I'm going to go change it to the latter myself. I'd suggest that neither of the two editors revert back to their original version. Simple reversion may result in protection or other methods to prevent edit warring. If you've got another idea, going forward, then go ahead and try something else. But make sure it's something else, please. I have no personal interest in this matter, other than an interest in seeing this somewhat uncivil edit war cease.

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I had not initiated the discussion on the talk page because I did not feel it incumbent upon me, since I was simply reverting it back to the text that was there prior to Ejército Rojo 1950's edits. I have no problem with the usage of "seize" to address the government's confiscation of properties or something like "expropriated" for that matter; however, I do object too using "assume ownership of" because it is ambiguous. It does not address the question of how the government "assume ownership of" the properties. Did it do so through legal means or did it take them all in one fell swoop without a basis in the law?

I also have a moral objection to such ambiguous. If we make that change, to hide the fact that the government confiscated the properties of its citizens without any basis in the law, then we must do the same in all cases. For instance, when we address the question of whether the Nazis stole Jewish properties or not, we would have to hide the fact that they did by saying that they simply "assumed ownership of" them. Freedomwarrior 01:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you direct people to the talk page, you should be there yourself. It just seems logical.
I don't know whether or not the seizures were legal. I suspect that, like many things involving near-recent history, especially when related to a country about which feelings still run high, the situation is far more complex than simply "legal" or "illegal", and that people in favor of each answer can find plenty of facts to support their argument and discredit the other. (Please don't, by the way. Arguing what is "true" is really not what this page is for.) I think it's better to find words which remain neutral, and let the reader examine the complexities for themselves. Among the differences between this situation and that of the Nazis is that very few people seriously argue that the actions of the Nazis were justified, whereas it seems that there is more disagreement on the Cuban situation. No harm is done in leaving the wording neutral (I disagree with it being categorized as "ambiguous") and allowing the reader to decide for themself whether the actions were legal or not, or something in between. kmccoy (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There are many people who believe that the actions of the Nazis were as justified as those of the Cuban government (for instance, the Iranian government, which denies that the Holocaust even took place and has promised to wipe Israel off the face of the earth). As such, I don't think it makes much sense to look at the numbers in determining whether something is just or not.

Regardless, while I prefer more explicit wording, I do believe that the facts speak for themselves in this case, and that the double meaning of the word "expropriate," which alerts a reader to the possibility of wrong action on the part of the government, will readers to come to an informed conclusion on this question. Best, Freedomwarrior 03:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedomwarrior, puh-lease, that Iran-bashing was pretty non-sequitorial, being anti-semite doesn't necessarily means that loony Iranian guy thinks Hitler was justified into stealing the jews' stuff. Anyways, the nazis took the jews' stuff and put it in the coffers of the State, benefitting no one else, for no good reason other than because they were jews, and the nazis generally like money. Castro, rightly or wrongly, thought that American corporations had no right to own land in Cuba while many Cubans were poor and landless, so he took them and put Cuban people working at them. Which is completely different. I'm in for "expopriated", it has neither a good nor a bad connotation. --200.222.30.9 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title III Renewal

This line in the article is confusing to me... This waiver must be renewed every six months and it has traditionally been. It was renewed for the last time July 17, 2006,[6] therefore the suspension of this provision will remain effective for, at least, another six months following that date. -- Does this mean the act is no longer in effect? If it is, it isn't made clear, I looked for info on google but couldn't find any... Thanks! Robert Beck 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In accurate comparison between Cuba and Vietnam

The statement in the criticisms section, “some supporters of the embargo who would point out that none of the countries (i.e., Vietnam) confiscated U.S. properties,” is partially false. While it is true that some supporters would say Vietnam did not confiscate U.S. properties, it is false because Vietnam DID in fact confiscate U.S. and French property. Some examples of U.S. property include:

Coca Cola


Parsons and Whittemore


Brothers Company


Fitzgerald, Frances. Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972. This book discusses some of the problems that business executives encountered in Vietnam.


If others agree that Vietnam DID in fact confiscate U.S. property, the question becomes should the statement be removed, or do we leave the statement noting that it is false, or do we implement some other change. Oneofshibumi 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missile Crisis paragraph

I guess the first mention of Cuban Missile Crisis should be removed:

Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy imposed travel restrictions on 1963 February 8, and the Cuban Assets Control Regulations were issued on 1963 July 8, under the Trading with the Enemy Act in response to Cubans hosting Soviet nuclear weapons, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This doesn't make sense imho Sevcsik (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The embargo worked

It should probably be added that the embargo worked in the end, as Castro stepped down from power. JayKeaton (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. He stepped down, but put his brother Raul Castro in charge in his place. I think the American Government's intention with the embargo is to end the rule of the Communist Party of Cuba and have western-style democracy. Once that happens, or the Cuban government decides to give in to whatever demands the American Government has, i think the embargo will end. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 01:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's also pretty ridiculous to assert that the embargo is what caused Fidel to step down and hand power to Raul - Fidel got sick. Furthermore, the original intention of the embargo was ambiguous - it was partially motivated by desires to change the nature of Cuba's government, but it also aimed to interfere with the USSR's ability to use Cuba as a hegemonic center against the US - a goal which is no longer relevant today. Seb144 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section?

There should be a separate section for modern criticism - as it is, the history just flows into lists of various groups who have criticized the embargo. It seems less organized this way.

I'm going to go ahead and create the section. This will require rearranging a few statements.

Seb144 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)