Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba

pjfanatic4 wrote:

Do you mean "absent domestic production" that the country needs to be self sufficient in all aspects of the economy? Not even the mighty United States is that.

mammasan wrote:

That is true, but I'm pretty sure the Cuban population can't live off of mangos, papaya, guayava, mamay, sugar, coffee, and tobacco alone.

CaterinaA wrote:

Is this sad because he's many other things other than a documentary-maker or because that documentary -regardless of its content- was extremely ugly and poorly edited and, well, a disgrace to the noble art of documentary-making ? Of course keep in mind that Oscars rarely reward good films...

Sorry, didn't want to hijack the thread

farfromglorified wrote:

They do because of trade, but they also do because of their own resources. Cuba has natural resources beyond farmland.



Of course. Cubans love oil too. It would be nice to see them actually use it to develop plastic fibers so their hospital patients didn't have to buy gauze on the black market for their "free surgeries".

farfromglorified wrote:

Completey? No. But in large part, yes. Those resources are largely wasted or untouched.



Hehe...Cuba's primary natural resource, the brains of their citizens, have been wasted and untouched as well then, if your only hope for oil production are Exxon or Hugo Chavez.

farfromglorified wrote:

The capital is not there because Cuba has been at war with capital for 50 years now. And the experience is not there because Cuba has been at war with the mind for 50 years now. That leaves them with only 'outside sources'.

To suggest that a nation cannot build "infrastructure", "capital", or "experience" from scratch is to beg the question of how anyone built any of these things in the first place.

Byrnzie wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
The United States embargo against Cuba (described in Cuba as el bloqueo, Spanish for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba on February 7, 1962. It was codified into law in 1992 with the stated purpose of bringing democracy to the Cuban people, and in fact is entitled The Cuban Democracy Act. The fact the US didn't impose sanctions on the Batista dictatorship and many other dictatorships it supports, lead some scholars to believe that the reason for the embargo was revealed in a declassified 1964 State Department document which declares Fidel Castro to be an intolerable threat because he "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half," since the Monroe Doctrine declared that no challenge to U.S. dominance would be tolerated in the hemisphere.[3] In 1996 Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act which further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor regime in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government are met. In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year. As of 2007, the embargo which prohibits American businesses from trading or conducting business with Cuban interests is still in effect, making it one of the few times in history that United States citizens have been restricted from doing business abroad, and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.[citation needed]

The United Nations General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution condemning the embargo every year since 1991. The most recent condemnation took place on November 8, 2006, by a vote of 183-4, with the U.S., Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voting against.

Religious leaders oppose the embargo for a variety of reasons, including humanitarian and economic hardships the embargo imposes on Cubans. Pope John Paul II called for the end to the embargo during his 1979 pastoral visit to Mexico, and again during his 1998 visit to Cuba. Patriarch Bartholomew I called the embargo a "historic mistake" while visiting the island on January 25, 2004. United States religious leaders have also opposed the embargo. A joint letter in 1998 from the Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ to the U.S. Senate called for the easing of economic restrictions against Cuba. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Minister Louis Farrakhan have also publicly opposed the embargo. On May 15, 2002 former President Jimmy Carter spoke in Havana, calling for an end to the embargo, saying "Our two nations have been trapped in a destructive state of belligerence for 42 years, and it is time for us to change our relationship."


http://pd.cpim.org/2005/1113/11132005_sitaram.htm
The Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cuba, Perez Roque called the embargo 'an act of genocide'. Cuba has also denounced as "theft" the use of frozen Cuban assets to pay for lawsuits filed in the US against the Republic of Cuba'.

The embargo means the imposition of economic sanctions. These do not appear to stand the test of international law. Jurisdiction outside national boundaries has to be based on acts that have “substantial or grave effects within the territory” of the State exercising such jurisdiction. “Trafficking” in nationalised property cannot be said to have a substantial effect on the United States or its economy and, therefore, the extra-territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified by the doctrine of grave effects. Similarly, the embargo’s limitations on the export and import of goods contravenes multilateral trading regimes and cannot be grounded on the GATT exception clause of “essential security interests” since there is neither a state of war nor a military threat.



Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. The American Association for World Health concluded that, in the case of the impact on the Cuban health system, the embargo “caused a significant rise in suffering with patients going without essential drugs and doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment.”



The embargo also continued to have an impact on food aid deliveries, and was greater in the eastern provinces, which continued to suffer the worst food insecurity, particularly given the 2004 drought. The negative impact of the embargo in the educational sector is linked to trade restrictions that prevent the purchase of needed inputs at more competitive prices. The difficulties imposed by the embargo have been recognised by UNCTAD especially the deleterious impact on international trade, investment flow, loans, and interest payments, as well as scientific and technical co-operation.

Byrnzie wrote:

I've never witnessed any hate and anger coming from Michael Moore.

I get the impression that people like you would have hated Walt Whitman, Thoreau, or Mark Twain also. To me, these people represent the best of what is good and honest, and fruitful in America.

Byrnzie wrote:

So Michael Moore is a zero who does nothing about problems? Hmm, an Oscar winning zero who has just happened to have made many acclaimed documentaries. I wonder what you've done in comparison?

Byrnzie wrote:

I've never witnessed any hate and anger coming from Michael Moore. I've always gotten the impression that he's a pretty laid-back kind of fella who feels aggrieved at the injustices he sees around him, and because he's found himself in a postion to do something about them, he has done something about them.
I get the impression that people like you would have hated Walt Whitman, Thoreau, or Mark Twain also. To me, these people represent the best of what is good and honest, and fruitful in America.