Al Neuharth: Why is China OK, but Cuba 'enemy'?

USA Today ^ | February 22, 2002 | Al Neuharth, USA Today founder

[Cincinatus' Wife]

In Beijing, Bush called China our ''partner.'' Cuba officially is our ''enemy.'' Why?

Because a small number of powerful exiles in South Florida cow our politicians into keeping the crazy Cuban policy. That was designed to castrate Fidel Castro and has failed for more than 40 years.

[Demidog]

Anyway, he claimed on this thread in front of God and everybody that Congress had "no power" under Article I to bar US trade with Cuba.

Finally you get it right. What'd it take you? 7 posts of BS before you actually read it and got it right?

The term regulate cannot by any stretch of the imagination be taken to mean prohibit. Prohibition is not regulation.

The act of prohibiting trade would in fact repudiate regulation as then there would be nothing at all to regulate.

[Demidog]

To communist Cuba.

Right. This is not a reduction of government loans to businesses and in fact the opposite is true under the Bush administration.

[TLBSHOW]

What are your thoughts on taking over Cuba? Forget trade and other nothings, just attack them and take the country from Castro. Tell me.

[Toddsterpatriot]

But I don't think a firm has carte blanche to export to whomever they please and if they don't get paid, the US will foot the bill. If this were true, exporting firms would be granting unlimited credit to everyone on earth, outside the USA.

You're right, firms don't have carte blanche. The govt has rules concerning what can be exported, how much is guaranteed and who we can export to. Some countries are bad risks, like Cuba and I'm sure other crooked dictatorships in Africa and elsewhere.

Export all you want, but if you want credit guarantees don't trade with Cuba et al.

[TLBSHOW]

you have freepmail

[GuillermoX]

Castro has survived the Embargo for over 40 years. Are you saying he's about to fall? I'd say he still has a pretty tight grip on the country, with the Embargo in place.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Ok, so we'll go on.

Let's summarize.

While you claimed that you knew "exactly what you were talking about" you didn't know about the hundreds of millions of dollars pouring into Cuba from exiles, and you didn't know about the visa lottery either.

Did you know that US firms have built manufacturing plants in Cuba? And that they operated them with Cuban labor?

[GuillermoX]

It seems the main (and the only one, for some) argument against the Embargo is that the US will have to foot the bill for non-payment, once our companies ship goods to the island.

[Polybius]

Elian had a father.....The parents decide.

That's correct and I am in favor of father's rights.

However, Elian's father "decided" what he decided with his parents, his wife's parents and his wife's older child held as de facto hostages back in Cuba. Even then, Elian's father was kept under de facto house arrest by the Clinton Administration while he was here in the U.S.

When the grandmothers came over, their husbands were held as hostages back in Cuba.

If the entire Gonzalez family: father, stepmother, BOTH siblings and grandparents had been allowed to come to the U.S. and if the father had been allowed to travel where he pleased and talk to whomever he pleased and not just Clintonista fat cats, I would believe that the father made his decision of his own free will.

Imagine forcing your wife to decide between you and a stepson and her own flesh and blood son from a previous marriage. Which one would she decide never to see again as the price for staying in the USA?

[Demidog]

What are your thoughts on taking over Cuba?

If Cuba hasn't initiated an act of war on the US such would be immoral.

[Willie Green]

I'd say he still has a pretty tight grip on the country, with the Embargo in place.

I'd say Castro's grip is strengthened because our enforcement of the Embargo is a loophole riddled farce.

Cuban sugar is imported to the United States through the backdoor: Canada.

It is actually shipped to Canada where it is disolved in molassas. We import "Canadian" molassas, refine out the sugar, then export molassas back to Canada!

In addition, American companies that use large quantities of sugar (such as candy-makers) have been shutting down their U.S. factories and moving to Canada. Importing "Canadian" candy is permitted, and Castro laughs his way to the bank.

[breakem]

Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth. Republicans learned to support Nixon opening up to China, but not Cuba. China committed the same or worse atrocities as Castro and on a larger scale. Today they support N. Korea and Iraq militarilly. Castro has become small potatoes on an international scale as compared to the heyday of Soviet control.

The reason we don't open up is because there are upwards of 500,000 votes opposing such a move. Very few poiliticans will stand up against that. At this point we can't retrace and shut down China because too much business has become involved.

Despite the double standard, at this late date, just wait 5-10 years and the old man will be gone presenting an opening that will be hard to ignore.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Castro expects the goods up front and gives his IOU.

If that is satisfactory with the companies who trade there then it is their choice. That can in no way be construed to be a burden on the American taxpayer. I am not obligated to bail out some company that agrees to those stipulations and then goes belly up. Sorry that you think this is so.

24 posted on 3/3/02 8:12 AM Pacific by Demidog [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

That's why the Bush administration is denying government backed business loans and why anti-embargo groups are screaming-- government backed=taxpayers.

And as for the company taking losses, it reminds me of shoplifters' gains being paying consumers' higher costs.

32 posted on 3/3/02 8:20 AM Pacific by Cincinatus' Wife [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Bump. Where has this occurred please.

102 posted on 3/3/02 11:05 AM Pacific by Demidog

That's why the Bush administration is denying government backed business loans To communist Cuba.

193 posted on 3/3/02 3:24 PM Pacific by Toddsterpatriot [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies | Report Abuse ] To communist Cuba.

Right. This is not a reduction of government loans to businesses and in fact the opposite is true under the Bush administration.

202 posted on 3/3/02 3:49 PM Pacific by Demidog [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

As you can see Cincinatus' Wife said Castro expects goods upfront, gives IOU.

Demidog says if companies agree, thats their problem.

Cincinatus' Wife says that's why Bush doesn't want to give government guarantees.

Demidog asks where has that occured.

I answered communist Cuba.

Demidog says Right. This is not a reduction of government loans to businesses and in fact the opposite is true under the Bush administration.

Not sure what he means but I think he is confused.We are not talking about loans to business but trade guarantees.

[GuillermoX]

I knew that money was being sent to Cuba, and I admitted such, butI didn't know the exact amount, and neither do you. I am aware that some type of visa lottery system was in place, I am not aware of the specifics. Not knowing exacts doesn't mean that I "don't know what I'm talking about".

And Yes, I'm aware US Corps do and want to do business in Cuba. Why wouldn't they?

[Gumption]

Actually Demidog does have a point when he says the power to "regulate trade" doesn't mean the Feds have the power to prohibit trade. I believe, back then, regulate meant to make regular or uniform, so as one state isn't treated differently from another state. I suppose the same is true of trade with foreign nations, as in one state can't charge a larger, or lesser, tax on imports from France than any other state.

Or look at it this way. Does the power to regulate commerce between the states imply that the Feds can prohibit Virginia from trading with Maryland? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. If not, why would the power to regulate mean something different when applying that power to trade with foreign nations?

What do you guys think?

[TLBSHOW]

What I find immoral is the fact we haven't attacked them and overthrew Castro yet.

[Polybius]

What are your thoughts on taking over Cuba?

If Cuba hasn't initiated an act of war on the US such would be immoral.

I am a Cuban American and a U.S. Naval officer and I have to agree with Demidog on this one.

As long as Castro minds his manners and does not threaten the U.S.A., I can not justify the loss of American lives to liberate Cuba. That is for the Cubans to do.

Two of my uncles fought at the Bay of Pigs. They tried to liberate Cuba from Castro. They lost. Cest la guerre.

Now, if Castro sets up Cuba as a base for Chi-Com or terrorist actions against the U.S., then that's a totally different matter and he should be attacked.

[breakem]

The feds can regulate trade to provide for the national defense. Something Clinton did not do when he approved supercomputers and missile guidance technology for China.

Based on the dicscussions I have followed her, across-the-board banning of trade to Cuba is not a national defense issue.

[Demidog]

Two of my uncles fought at the Bay of Pigs.

My condolances. Even if they lived, their administration sold them down the river. I've read reports about how intelligence knew that Castro would be able to easily squash an insurgency and didn't bother to let anyone know the facts. CYA was the order of the day in the intelligence community.

[Yardstick]

Ah, so you are familiar with the emigration lottery. Why do you think the Cuban government would have such a thing? Is it because the government wants to see dollars flow into Cuba from the emigrants, who send them back to their families?