Obama Arrives in Cuba

President Obama and his family have landed in Cuba for a very historic visit. Who would not want to go to Cuba? I sure would.

What an achievement for his presidency. He is the first president to visit Cuba in 90 years. [More...]

A lawyer's organization I belong to held their meeting in Havana a few weeks ago. Here are some of the photos they shared (cropped by me to make them fit):

Cathedral Square:

A mouse sculpture in Cathedral Square:

Hemingway's captain's chair:

A bar in the area near the dock where Hemingway's boat is kept.

a Hemingway Memorial:

A banyon tree near the law school:

The grand hall of the Revolution Museum:

A bust of Lincoln in the Revolution Museum

A downed U.S. spy plane from the 1950's outside the Revolution Museum:

The vintage cars are all over.

I know I say this all the time, but Photobucket is the absolute worst photo upload site ever. It's littered with ads for itself even though I pay for a pro account. It takes forever to upload a photo -- as slow as molasses. It changes the rotation of photos on its own. It rejects many of them for no reason. And you can't link to an individual photo so you can view it outside of photobucket. I may be going back to Flickr.

< Sunday Open Thread | Terrorist Attacks In Brussels >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes We Came (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 20, 2016 at 08:04:55 PM EST
    Cuba 2016

    It's downright inspiring reading and hearing how Cubans are reacting to this.   You forget how nice inspiring can be.  We get so little of it these days.

    It was pretty inspiring (none / 0) (#43)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 08:22:31 AM EST
    to see Obama and party in grant of that giant image of Che, the racist mass murderer. What a choice of background.

    I guess (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 08:32:16 AM EST
    you were also inspired by that picture of Reagan in front of Lenin when Russia was still a communist country?

    And Abdul probably swooned ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 24, 2016 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    ... when President Reagan honored the German military's Second World War dead -- including Waffen S.S. soldiers -- in a March 1985 ceremony at Bitburg Cemetery.

    Certainly (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 20, 2016 at 08:10:14 PM EST
    nice to see some pictures. The cars are something else!

    Soem great pictures (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    From USA Today

    I love the ones with Air Force One flying over Havana. Who would have thought we would see that?

    Very happy to have this First Family as our representatives. They do us proud.


    The cars do look extraordinary, (none / 0) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Sun Mar 20, 2016 at 08:52:18 PM EST
    but up close they're not very good.  Lotta brush painted plymoths that are taxis.  I'm sure we'll have a fleet of bulletproof suburvans at our new/old embassy.  Cuba has quite a ways to go, since they are still a communist dictatorship.  It is changing for the better, I think.

    Many, many non U.S. made high-end vehicles. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 05:24:56 PM EST
    it isn't just because they are a communist (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Sun Mar 20, 2016 at 11:34:10 PM EST
    dictatorship, it's mainly because they've been exiled from the rest of the world since 1960. sure, up until the USSR fell apart, they were getting some basic supplies cheap, but those were only necessities, anything else, they were on their own. while it was only the US that had an official embargo, most of our allies recognized at least a surface embargo, making it nearly impossible for Cuba to join the modern world.

    all this because a bunch of scum bag Battista supporters in Miami had a hissy fit anytime someone suggested normalizing relations with the Castro regime. Cuba is the West's North Korea, without bombs.


    It is (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 06:54:50 AM EST
    kind of interesting because other pictures which I guess are footage that is sneaked out of Cuba certainly don't show pictures that are this "shiny".

    An extremely important (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    foreign policy achievement of President Obama that impacts interrelationships with not only Cuba, but also, Latin and South America.  There has long been both popular and business community support for improved relationships between the countries.

     There has been a changing view of many Cuban Americans, especially among the younger generation, who were born in the US and came to realize that the position of retro-politicians, such as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lethinen, are untenable.   The business community, too, looks at the 11 million people of Cuba and sees opportunities slipping out of their hands.

     Little Marco, the world's oldest young man, failed to grasp the generational effect and stuck with his mentor, Ros-Lethinen's, virulent anti-Castro policy. Little Marco lost Florida in the Republican primary, losing 66 of the state's 67 counties--capturing only his own Republican base in Miami-Dade County. His Cuba position proved as viable as his presidential candidacy.

    There is a long way to go to fully normalize our relations with Cuba, but the baby steps so far have now moved to big boy strides with the trip by President Obama and, importantly, his wife and daughters.

     The carrot/stick policy of the past is giving way to a carrot policy such as investment and tourism. Broader access and use of the internet and social media will become critical to change.

      The administration, no doubt, still looks to "regime change," but the nature of that change is likely to take a different course. Nature's consequences coupled with information offers and begets change that will drive human rights.  In the meanwhile, the lives of ordinary Cubans have a chance for betterment.

     It was a long time in coming, and it will, still, take a long time to undo the historic problems and move ahead.  But, it is a great and strong beginning that needs to be nurtured along by a similarly progressive administration.

     Another stake at play and in jeopardy with Cruz or Trump.  Cruz will add to his busy first day in office by tearing up any and all agreements Of President Obama  that so much as hints at progress, and Trump said he will close our Embassy in Havana and apply his terrific deal-making skills to get something. An unspecified something.

    RANT ALERT (again) (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ragebot on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 05:27:31 PM EST
    JFK (and congress) started isolating Cuba part of what they did was prevent America from buying sugar from Cuba and encourage growing sugarcane and producing sugar in Florida.  After Castro ran the Fanjul families out of Cuba they took their fortune to Florida and started sugar production there.  I have posted links previously about how Florida is not really an ideal place to grow sugar due to the climate, not to mention a history of environmental destruction.

    Cuba may be the best of the Greater Antilles but that is kinda like saying someone is the biggest midget in the circus.  Countries in the Greater Antilles are all poor third world countries with economies that are dumpster fires.  The only real money maker Cuba has/had was selling sugar.

    Bottom line is the best thing for Cuba's economy would be letting America buy sugar from there, not to mention the advantage to Americans with much cheaper sugar prices (I know there is a down side to too much sugar in your diet but lets ignore that for the moment).  Not to mention how much healthier the Everglades, Keys, and shoreline of South Florida would be.

    So how come no pols on either side are suggesting we rethink our sugar policy towards Cuba.

    The price of sugar is supported by (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 07:50:28 PM EST
    the Feds. I can't see them letting cheap sugar in.



    Obama's visit to Cuba ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    would have played much better if all the events were scored with great Cuban music.


    Seriously, this is one of Obama's achievements that impresses me.

    Crossing my fingers that it actually holds.

    1928 - Last President to Visit Cuba (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    Calvin Coolidge

    Fidel Castro was 2.

    This reminds me a bit (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    Of when the Berlin wall fell.

    Crazy to think that it wasn't really that long ago.

    Except the East German government (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 10:49:01 AM EST
    was in the throes of collapsing and we were not interested in propping in up.

    That's not the case here.

    Be interesting to watch all the politicos on both sides get rich while basic rights remain forbidden.

    And I understand they are going to build a big hotel.

    Shades of Godfather II.

    The more things change the more they remain the same.


    no it's not the same (none / 0) (#10)
    by CST on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    As that had almost nothing to do with us.  I just meant in the sense that the world is changing/opening up.

    It's more like Reagan going to China.


    "Us"..did everything (just) short (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    of starting WWII to inculcate a paranoid, circle the wagons, seige mentality in post-revolutionary Cuba. Starting with Kennedy's Hillary-like "get tough" pronouncements about those missiles being "offensive" weapons..

    Proving once again that all that leaders sabre-rattling grandstanding does is increase the mistrust and closedness of already closed societies.


    jondee: "'Us' did everything just short of starting WWII [sic] to inculcate a paranoid, circle the wagons, seige mentality in post-revolutionary Cuba. Starting with Kennedy's Hillary-like 'get tough' pronouncements about those missiles being 'offensive' weapons."

    ... that were deployed in Cuba during the summer and fall of 1962 (Operation Anadyr) WERE in fact offensive weapons, as were the Jupiter intermediate-range ballistic missiles which the U.S. had based on NATO ally Turkey's soil and aimed at the Soviet heartland earlier that year.

    In obvious retrospect, the almost casual decisions by the respective military leaderships of both countries to deploy "tactical" delivery systems on each others' southern frontiers were brazenly provocative and wholly irresponsible moves on each side's part, because their subsequent and mutual gross underestimation and miscalculation of their opponent's political resolve quickly brought us to the wholly unnecessary brink of a devastating nuclear exchange.

    Both Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev and President John Kennedy found themselves effectively boxed in by the mindless Cold War-era bellicosity of their own generals and political allies. But even as they "got tough" with one another publicly, both leaders had secretly opened back-channel negotiations in a concerted effort to find a mutual way out of that misguided confrontation. Fortunately for the world, they succeeded in doing so and cooler heads eventually prevailed.

    And really, jondee, given that Hillary Clinton had not yet quite reached fifteen years of age during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, your wanton mis-characterization of President Kennedy's public statements at the time as "Hillary-like" is nothing but politically motivated hyperbole.

    Suffice to say that you don't get to rewrite history to your own satisfaction and desire, any more than does Jim.



    Well, it is always nice to have (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 08:11:05 PM EST
    the Donald keeping things straight...but you seem to forget that it was JFK's meeting with Khrushchev in 6/61 that set the fuse burning. Kennedy recognized that it was a failure. Worse, Khrushchev saw Kennedy as weak and believed he could push him around. Thus when Castro requested missiles Khrushchev was happy to oblige and we almost participated in the end of the world.

    Worse, Kennedy knew he had to project a tougher image after giving up a huge tactical position in Turkey. So he upped the ante in South Vietnam and the rest is history.  


    Horse sh*t, Donald (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    You should know better.

    If the U.S hadn't been giving strong indications of a possible full-scale invasion in the offing, those missiles never would have been placed there..

    Do you really believe the Cubans were so utterly clueless at the time that they were utterly unaware of the sentiments and influence of members of the Joint Chiefs like Lemay and Lemnitzer, who were so unhinged in their anti-communist jihad that they actually discussed the possibility of staging terrorist attacks on U.S soil in order to rally the public in support of an invasion?

    The only absolute sure-fire way at that point that Cuba could prevent an invasion was to have those missiles pointed at America.


    You obviously have no understanding ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 24, 2016 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    ... of the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis within the context of the 1960s Cold War. The Soviet Union placed offensive missiles in Cuba Because they saw an opportunity to counter the threat they perceived from the U.S. missiles that had been recently deployed to Turkey. Fidel Castro was but an ancillary concern, a pawn in all this. He adamantly wanted the Soviet missiles in Cuba to remain in place. Instead, they were dismantled and removed, as were the American missiles in Turkey. That mutual agreement brought about the end of the 1962 crisis.

    Rewriting history.. (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 03:02:03 PM EST

    You just served up a rewrite worthy of the people Ellsberg first exposed -- a history of ommission, hidden in another leaf storm of verbiage, comparable to the NYT's history of wmds in Iraq.


    You guys are, obviously, (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    much more informed about this history than I am, but, I think a critical piece is being left out in this discussion.

    I'm referring to the role of Fidel Castro in all those intrigues. To my knowledge he was a true-blue, Communist, revolutionary zealot. Even at the most critical (dangerous) point of the missile showdown, and it was becoming apparent that both Kennedy and Khrushchev were anxiously looking for a face-saving way out of this dilemma, Castro was pounding the table for a different solution.......all out war. Without a doubt he knew that escalation of the conflict meant certain death for many (most?) Cubans, and himself, he was so committed to "The Cause" that he felt going out in a blaze of glory was the perfect, and only, way to end this Saga honorably.

    Fortunately for everyone, Castro, being a completely dependent puppet of the Soviet Union, had no real cards to play in this game of Showdown, and we lived to tell our grandchildren about the time the world really, almost blew itself up.


    Castro as self-immolating fanatic? (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 04:55:11 PM EST
    yearning for "all-out war"?

    I think Castro was a little more calculating than that, Shooter.

    I think he and people like Che Guevara were steeped enough in revolutionary theory to not confuse it with anything like an apocalyptic religion..

    The scenario you're suggesting sounds a lot like another variation on the nationalistic we're-the-only-rational-one's-in-the-world narrative that all countries promulgate in times of conflict with other nations.  


    Castro was very opposed to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    removing the misses from Cuba, not because he wanted to go out in an apocalyptic blaze of glory, but rather because he saw the missles as a curb on the U.S. Government's, and the Kennedy's, zeal to assassinate, or at least overthrow him.

    Casey, (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 05:52:29 PM EST
    Castro didn't want "to go out in an apocalyptic blaze of glory...."

    But, based upon the only choices available, remove the missiles, or fire them off into the U.S, he, adamantly argued for the latter.


    I don't remember hearing that, Shooter (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 06:07:33 PM EST
    but I do remember a journalist (name escapes) interviewing Castro soon after Kennedy was killed who remarked to Castro that some suspected Cuban involvement in the assassination, to which Castro responded something to the effect of "do people think we're completely insane?"

    Aw, Rats, Jondee!! (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    Now you're going to make me work, and dig out some links.

    I don't just make this stuff up you know.


    The East German government and (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    the Soviet built wall had almost nothing to do with us?? Are you forgetting the Berlin airlift and the Cold War?

    I am all for reestablishing relations with Cuba.

    But what we have here is the existing government being aided and kept in place.

    That does nothing towards establishing a democratic government.


    How are (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    you so sure that opening up Cuba won't lead to democracy? Truthfully we really don't know the future but opening it up is more likely to lead to reforms than not.

    If the existing communist government (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    had wanted democracy, free elections, etc. it has had 50 plus years.

    We had relations with the Soviet Union and it never changed until it collapsed under pressure from us. Castro's Cuba will be the same.

    And an Obama regime will not pressure him. Trump might but he has a lot of other eggs to fry.


    You're (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    moving the goal posts. For 50 years we had an embargo against them and they were closed. You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

    We had virtually no open relations with Russia until the 1980's.

    All Trump would do is make communism stronger in Cuba like previous Republican presidents have done. Conservatives have been backers of dictators as long as they were right wing ones like Batista.


    Why did us having an embargo (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 07:35:09 PM EST
    on them keep them from instituting a democratic type government??

    Point is, they are dedicated communists.  



    Because (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    instead of people focusing on communism as being the problem the US became the boogie man. Castro was able to say hey, look over there it's the US causing all our problems.

    Much like Trump saying look over there it's the minorities that are causing all the problems in this country. And that tune seems to be working on you so why are you surprised about it working in Cuba?


    Cubans wouldn't have stayed "dedicated" (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 08:05:26 AM EST
    after about ten years of open trade relations with the U.S - beginning fifty years ago.  What revolutionaries really want is a change of ownership.  

    I don't understand why you don't take the opposite side of this Jim.  

    It was a Democratic President's foul up.  So was Vietnam.  In the case of Cuba, 50 years of people's lives turned to rot.  In the case of Vietnam, almost 70,000 Americans and a million+ Vietnamese died.  

    Instead of ranting about communism, which has failed on every possible level everywhere somebody's tried it, you should be laughing your @$$ off at the hubris and recklessness of the Democratic party Icons who created those messes.


    Your upright indignation (none / 0) (#45)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 08:34:54 AM EST
    holds not water so long as the US holds prisoners in limbo without trial or charge at Gitmo. Your indignation holds no water so long as this government remains sweethearts to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. And so far as democracy in Cuba, our latest ventures in exporting democracy have not turned out so well. Perhaps we should allow Cuba it's own course.

    And you're a dedicated (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    right wing reactionary.

    Maybe Cuba should ship some poisoned cigars over here -- say, to be freely enjoyed at the next Heritage Foundation gala fundraiser.

    Though I hear Heritage now frowns on the use of the word "gala", because it reminds them of sodomites.


    The Models... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    ... used 50 years ago don't hold up to the digital age.  

    Quit frankly given the GOP's most recent epic failure at spreading democracy, they have no business doling out advise and how to best to do it.

    FYI, the Castro you refer to isn't running the country and Raul Castro is much more open to the west and isn't going to be around much longer, he is 84.  This is the time.

    The assumption that pressure is the best way to do this isn't backed by our history with Cuba.  I would say pressure falls in the 'does not work' category.

    Trumps got eggs to fry, jesus Jim, that is your answer, he will be too busy to worry about Cuba.  Good thing President Obama can fry eggs and develop policy and visit Cuba.  I suspect HRC can fry eggs and work on diplomacy as well, after all she doesn't have a 2000 mile wall to build.


    Ah yes, Raul is so open (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 07:38:58 PM EST
    that the day before Obama arrived they were arresting for demonstrating.

    And yes, Obama has done so well in the Middle East he now wants to lead from behind in Cuba.

    What's next?? Helping out North Korea?

    Oh, wait. That'll be Hillary's.


    Given your track record on foreign policy matters (none / 0) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 08:30:51 PM EST
    I am reasonably sure President Obama course is the correc one.

    "We" never wanted the establishment (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    of democracy as a first priority ANYWHERE.

    The first priority has ALWAYS been a establishing an ideal "stable" environment for the U.S investor class. Exhibit A being the so-called "opening up" of China that Hillary and her friend Henry K love to pat themselves on the back over. Exhibit B is practically the entire history of U.S relations, incursions, and depredations in Banana Republic Latin America.


    And Hilllary won't even try (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:44:33 AM EST
    I meant (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    The wall coming down had almost nothing to do with us.

    Haven't you heard... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    Reagan single handedly tore down the Berlin Wall, brick by brick, with a rock hammer damn near worn down to the nub.  Without attracting the Stasi's attention by use of a Rita Hayworth billboard.  

    I heard that Carter (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    pulled off his sweater, dropped to his knees and prayed it down... Right after he rescued our people from the Iranian radical islamists.

    Not true sir... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    the Iranians had a deal to wait for Reagan and get some weapons for them hostages...Allah helps those who arm themselves with the help of infidels.

    To be more precise (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 01:42:27 PM EST
    right wing conservative infidels who'd sell their mothers to win an election.

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 07:39:59 PM EST
    He did it just after dispatching that killer rabbit that attacked him.



    Sir... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 02:03:13 PM EST
    ... Ronald Regan is no Andy Dufresne.

    Repressive? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    I am all for reestablishing relations with Cuba.

    But what we have here is the existing government being aided and kept in place.

    Saudi Arabia is far more repressive than Cuba, a religious dictatorship, i.e. a theocracy.  Women there can't even travel without a man's permission.  But not only are we super-friendly with them, the American taxpayers pick up a big part of the Saudi taxpayers' defense tab for them, leaving the government to spend money on...luxuries for the ruling family.


    I agree re SA and Trump (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 07:42:17 PM EST
    has called them out.

    Of course we need SA. We need stability in the region that controls a big chunk of oil.

    What does Cuba have that we need?

    Watch the money flow to the bureaucrats.


    Nice (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    moral compass you have there, we need the Kingdom's oil so we should look the other way. Cuba has nothing so we are free to condemn them.

    How about customers (none / 0) (#47)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Mar 22, 2016 at 09:53:58 AM EST
    for US goods? Seems like they could some new Chevy's down there. Every good capitalist needs new customers.  After marijuana being on Schedule 1, the US policy towards Cuba is the dumbest continuing policy we have. Get over it.

    Do you mean Nixon going (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    to China? Did Reagan ever go to China?

    Oops! (none / 0) (#15)
    by CST on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    that is what I meant.

    Although Reagan did also go to China.


    Dumb... (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    ... Canadians and Europeans have never been forbidden to visit Cuba and it is a vacation destination for many.

    You are funny though, human rights in Cuba, hmmm, good thing we are treating 'enemy combatants' so well in Cuba or that argument would be complete non-sense coming from the right.

    The right has no standing to talk about human rights in Cuba, what-so-ever.


    Very true Scott (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by fishcamp on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 12:53:44 PM EST
    When we were invited to the Hemingway Blue Marlin tournament in 2001, we, in theory, spent no money.  Then, they were all up in arms about doing business with the enemy.  Haven't heard much about that lately.  Now it's expensive and shabby, soon it will be expensive and quaint.

    Are you mixing things up? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by linea on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 10:51:50 PM EST
    The US Military isn't treating the prisoners in custody at the military base in Cuba reasonably well? I've never heard that. Are you sure you aren't confusing that military jail with the CIA "black sites" when Bush was president?

    My good friend from (none / 0) (#32)
    by ragebot on Mon Mar 21, 2016 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    Canada, Addison Chan literally wrote the book on cruising in Cuba and I invite anyone to do a google search on his name and "Three Penny Opera"  (the name of his boat) to access his free blog about his adventures in Cuba.  Just as an aside he is in Cuba now and has been sailing there every winter for several years.

    You may well wind up with a much different impression of Cuba than you have now.  What shocked me most was the sex trade in Cuba, it is worse than Phuket.  Another of my Canadian friends spent months riding his bike in Cuba.  As a rule the roads in Cuba are not all that good, but some of the bike guides say things along the lines of the paved road turns to dirt, then to a narrow path, then to a boulder field when heading to the South Coast of Cuba.  There are some towns on the South Coast of Cuba that can only be reached by boat.  Of course the same could be said for many third world countries.

    Sad to say things are changing, and probably not for the better, with the expected influx of Americans.  Glad I first saw Cuba in the late 1950s on a trip with my Dad.