- It will mean the US opens an embassy in Havana, and relaxes banking restrictions against the country, and makes it easier for Americans to travel and do business there. In return, Cuba will release Alan Gross, alongside 53 other political prisoners, and expand access to the internet across the country.
Yeah. Important to remember that while the embargo is dumb for practical reasons, Cuba is not the place that Che-worshipers pretend it is. The Castro regime is a joke excuse for a government. Clearly Obama hopes that opening ties will force them to clean up a bit. I'm skeptical, but it's a move toward lifting the embargo, maybe, which would be a good step. Of course, I'm not sure what the odds of that are, now.
Okay, fine... I'll be the one to ask what everyone else is thinking, can we finally get Cuban cigars easily and by legal means? My guess is that even the Castro regime knows it's a joke and wants a transition to something more tenable, while maintaining power. Who knows...
Cuban cigars have been pretty easy to get hold of for a while now, I think. I'm not a cigar person particularly but it's my understanding that all the best cigar companies left Cuba because of the embargo a long time ago. Why would they stay? Makes no business sense. I'd love it if someone with expertise weighed in. Anyway, ignoring all that I think the answer to your question is technically, "no." This isn't a trade agreement. A trade agreement needs congress, and probably not this congress. We will see.
What exactly do you mean by this? I highly doubt the U.S. government is lifting restrictions in order to benefit the people of Cuba.Clearly Obama hopes that opening ties will force them to clean up a bit.
This has been the explicit goal of the government of the United States for many years, for better or worse. Patently false, unfortunately.Because it is not the responsibility nor the goal of a government to help the citizens of other countries, unless those being helped are allied and supportive of itself.
If nation's goals were to help others, there would never be war.
The US has had the goal of spreading democracy and freedom. While that is very good, and it is the best way for people to live, I don't see the US trying to prop up and help countries that regularly limit freedom, and if we do assist those countries, it is usually under the assumption of changing them (see: cuba). We are readily screwing over russia right now with sanctions.
I said this, and you began arguing with me. Although I now note that it was someone else and you continued the thread. Rereading, you opened with a non sequitur to begin with. blackfox said he doubted the US was reaching an accord with Cuba to help Cuban citizens, I asked why he thought that, and you said "Because it is not the responsibility nor the goal of a government to help the citizens of other countries." This is a spectrum-specific argument about why Obama shouldn't talk to Cuba for the purpose of helping Cubans, but unless you have very misguided ideas about what Obama stands for, you don't believe it's a valid answer to blackfox's original doubt. EDIT: I should mention that if you think the US does not routinely prop up regimes that limit freedom, there's a large gap in your knowledge of the history of the 20th century. I'm not attacking you, I'm just trying to mitigate what I consider a false statement.and if we do assist those countries, it is usually under the assumption of changing them (see: cuba).
Clearly Obama hopes that opening ties will force them to clean up a bit.
This is an incredibly interesting and bold move for both the US and cuba. Cuba opens up to internet, the US opens up cuba to modern, cheaper, smarter devices, and cubans get access to information for around the world, along with a way to organize revolts and such. I'm amazed they agreed to that. Not sure if it'll mean they do it though.and expand access to the internet across the country.