21May/02Off
Embargo creates leverage
USA Today: Embargo creates leverage
This is a well written op/ed piece, I think. Not the typical thing you'd think I'd point to or agree with but I can see the logic there. As much as I'd love to see embargos lifted on nations I understand that the USA has its beliefs to consider when trading with another nation.
About Jim Roepcke
No description. Please complete your profile.Roepcke Computing Solutions
Archive Calendar
Blogroll
Saved Searches
- WebObjects on Twitter Tweets about WebObjects (without all the iTunes store tweet spam)
Willing to Fail
WebObjects book
Badges
Recent tweets
- America's health care system upgraded from completely fucked to completely required, not completely guaranteed like they actually deserve. 26 mins ago
- @danielpunkass precisely. and congress chose "buy in within 3 years or else". #facepalm in reply to danielpunkass 35 mins ago
- @therawtwinkie I sincerely hope the changes help you, but I fear it's a sellout to the insurance co's, & in the long run it only helps them. in reply to therawtwinkie 10 hrs ago
- More updates...
May 22nd, 2002 - 04:53
At 02:04 AM 5/22/02 -0400, Jim wrote:
>This is a well written op/ed piece, I think. Not the typical thing you’d
>think I’d point to or agree with but I can see the logic there. As much
>as I’d love to see embargos lifted on nations I understand that the USA
>has its beliefs to consider when trading with another nation.
It was a pretty well-written editorial, but the U.S. policy is still
fundamentally backward and hypocritical.
Diaz-Balart said,
“Because we insist on three steps that we believe all peoples are entitled
to in an otherwise democratic Western Hemisphere: freedom for political
prisoners, freedom of speech and free elections.”
The U.S. never insisted on these preconditions for trade with Haiti. It did
not insist on these preconditions for trade with Indonesia. It never
insisted on these preconditions for trade with Guatemala (which had a far
worse human rights record than Cuba and was democratic in the same way that
Britney Spears is a virgin).
Matt Welch wrote an excellent article for Reason, “Foul Ball,”
(http://www.reason.com/0206/cr.mw.foul.shtml) about the perverse effects of
the embargo on both Cubans and Americans.
May 22nd, 2002 - 09:35
Sorry but Diaz-Balart’s piece is a disingenuous piece of self-serving fluff. The US was very late to the party with economic sanctions on South Africa. And to call Daniel Ortega’s freely elected (but not US sanctioned) government a dictatorship is a nice Reaganesque move.
The US never had issues with Pinochet’s Chile, nor Argentina’s military junta that was disappearing thousands on a weekly basis.
May 22nd, 2002 - 09:52
At 01:41 PM 5/22/02 -0400, vpd22 wrote:
>And to call Daniel Ortega’s freely elected (but not US sanctioned)
>government a dictatorship is a nice Reaganesque move.
Calling the Sandinista’s election “free” is a nice Chomskyesque move. (Why
is it that people who despise Pinochet tend to love Orgeta and vice versa?)
May 23rd, 2002 - 09:17
The post indicates nothing about Ortegas policies or politics, just an acknowledgement of an electoral process.
Why is it that any acceptance of an elected leader other than the one “sanctioned” by the US government indicates approval of his/her policies. Consider that the 1984 election was conducted under rules of proportional representation, not the US “winner take all,” pretty silly way to rig an election.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/nicaragua/cc-8412.html
Over 500 foreign observers had little problem with the 1984 election results, and only one country took issue with the results.