Most in U.S. favor diplomatic ties to Cuba

[Mika]

Source: UPI

April 24 (UPI) -- U.S. residents continue to support re-establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba, with 60 percent favoring the idea, a Gallup Poll indicated Friday.

The new findings continue a trend since 1999 of majority support among Americans for renewing ties with Havana, the pollsters said. U.S. President Barack Obama recently relaxed some travel restrictions to the country and gave U.S. telecommunications companies the right to pursue business there.

The poll also indicated that 51 percent favored ending the trade embargo against Cuba, consistent with Gallup findings since 1999 that has seen support for the move hovering between 48 and 51 percent.

Respondents to the poll also strongly favored ending restrictions on travel to Cuba with 64 percent saying they were in favor.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/24/Most-in-US-favor-diplomatic-ties-to-Cuba/UPI-20301240582005/

---

Never mind what the people want, and have wanted for decades, 99.7% of Americans remain travel banned by our own government.

Only Cuban-Americans are fully enfranchised citizens with their full constitutional rights.

The rest of us can piss off.

[maxsolomon]

1. no one but some Cuban-Americans & their congressional lackeys care any more

the fact that only cuban-americans can visit is DISCRIMINATORY.

[Judi Lynn]

2. It's time US citizens get the government we deserve, not the govt. which serves special interests.

They've been hoping continually from the first they could concoct a reason to invade Cuba, if you will recall the Operation Northwoods agreement all the Joint Chiefs signed which was refused by John F. Kennedy, and once they had obliterated the Cuban revolutionary government then they could put all the murdering, treacherous, racist monsters back in charge, just as it was before the people overthrew them, and no one would be the wiser.

As it is, Cuba has never given the U.S. any reason to invade them, and they've been stuck yearly with a growing pile of propaganda, and fantastic lies only the very most unbalanced and disturbed among us would ever buy.

Latin America has been firmly pressing for an end to this embargo, and its attendant poisonous effects, since all these years of nearly unanimous votes in the U.N. General Assembly didn't seem to make an impression on our Miami-Cuban-lobby-dominated politicians.

One way or another, Latin American leaders are going to make this an issue, and it was time decades ago to do the right thing, and remove the instruments of revenge against Cuba.

[Mika]

3. Funny that Americans can't get representative government, isn't it?

Americans want to lift the travel sanctions - don't have it.
Americans want universal health care of some kind - don't have it.

Too busy pointing the finger at, and condemning Cuba's government - a government that has enabled universal health care and free higher ed for all Cubans.

:crazy:

[Vidar]

4. Time to start moving from a non-functioning republic toward a more real democracy.

[robcon]

5. The Cuban government is odious.

But we should be allowed to travel there.

[Mika]

7. Its not the Cuba government that is banning American travel. Its the odious US government.

Agreed. We should be allowed to travel there.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Treat Cuba with respect

Friday, April 24, 2009
Treat Cuba with respect
Mark Entwistle, National Post


On April 13, U. S. President Barack Obama declared that he would relax rules that restrict Americans' ability to travel to Cuba and remit money to Cuban relatives. Beginning today, the National Post is asking experts and pundits to weigh in on the issue. Is Obama too soft on Cuba? Or should the U. S. trade embargo be removed altogether?

The elaborate dance between the United States and Cuba changed tempo last week, as the Cuba issue took up its informal place on the agenda of the Summit of the Americas.

We have been here before, so the music is not exactly unfamiliar to our ears. Former U. S. presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both took steps toward a more open relationship with Cuba. But, compared with the rigid hostility on display during the Bush years, the conciliatory language used between Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro was noteworthy. Mr. Obama's style suggests that he is free of the knee-jerk dogmatism that marked his predecessor.

~snip~
These differences run deep. The Spanish-American War in 1898 opened the way for the United States to create a colonial-style relationship with Cuba. This ended in 1959. Yet even now, there lingers among Americans the notion that the island should be an exotic extension of their own national economy.

Thus, Americans remain hard-wired to place preconditions on any dialogue with Cuba -- such as demanding the removal of the Castro regime, a commitment to democratic elections, the release of certain individuals from prison, etc.

Even the legal changes announced by President Obama on April 13 -- removing restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans, and allowing U. S. telecommunications companies to get Treasury licences to operate in Cuba -- reflected such assumptions. The new rule that permits CubanAmericans to travel as much as they like to Cuba, for instance, was framed as an opportunity for these travellers to become ambassadors for political change. Similarly, rules that would permit U. S. telecom companies to operate in Cuba were framed as an effort at democratization through information. No thought was given to whether the Cuban government actually might want foreign companies meddling within its borders. This is a sensitive political issue in any country.

Just ask Canada.

On the Cuban side, much media attention was given to President Raul Castro's statement that he was prepared to discuss everything with the United States. But there was a second, overlooked aspect to his position -- his insistence that any discussion be conducted on the basis of equality between the two nations, and respect for Cuba's sovereignty.

What would be required for a true breakthrough in this relationship after 50 years of hostility? The United States must drop its goal of regime change, and its desire to meddle in the basic structure of Cuban society. Those decisions are for the Cuban people to make.

More:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1529885

[applegrove]

8. It would really help the economy. Think of all the possibilities for business ventures that

would open up.

[Vogon_Glory]

9. Why Shouldn't We Have Full Diplomatic Relations With Cuba?

Why shouldn't the US have full diplomatic relations with Cuba? The US has full diplomatic relations with numerous other governments whose political and economic policies we disapprove of. For that matter, even Francisco Franco's Spain had diplomatic relations with Cuba, even though Franco was about as hard-right, commie-hating caudillo as you could get.

For those desiring a genuine representative democracy in Cuba, let them remember that the US had diplomatic relations with all those eastern European Soviet satellite regimes and stood aside when their long-suffering populace decided that it was time for change. US diplomatic recognition, as many right-wing dictatorships ultimately found, is not a fully-protective immunization from overthrow.

:patriot: