This rationale has some flaws. Reason one is correct. The embargo has failed under its original motivations. It has been a punishment though which is what it was designed to do as well. It is a way to say "Hey we don't like you." which in this way it has been successful.
Reason 2 is a fallacy. The embargo is not inhumane. Cuba has never been isolated. It has had the USSR and several other states have dropped the embargo over time.
Reason 3 is silly. The UN condemns lots of things. It was a non-binding agreement. If the UN were serious the they would have done more. But the UN is not a serious place.
Reason 4 is partially correct. The embargo is old but it is not outdated. We are still saying "Hey we don't like you." It is the right of the US to make the statement that we don't want to trade with them.
Reason 5 is overstated. The embargo does very little to America. 700 million, although vast to you and me, is chump change to the US economy. The embargo does hurt Cuba though. Their foreign minister even said as much with the written statement when the UN condemned the embargo in 2009. But the US government is not in the business of caring what hurts Cubans in matters of trade. They are not our citizens and should have no voice in US political trade decisions. Their minister said that we have denied them up to 93 billion over the life of the embargo and that we have hindered their development. Any US representative should say "You are not the US. You have no right to the trade in the first place since we don't want to trade with you."
Further the issue of freedom is not in question here. You do not have a right to travel wherever and wherever you want to. Drive to ORNL or any major military base and watch them turn you away unless you have a direct reason for being there. The American people, through our political decisions, have stated that travel to Cuba should be restricted. This is just like driving without a seat belt. Yes, your freedom to drive unsafely is restricted but society can restrict this through law.
Reason 6 is a person opinion and is not an objective reason to remove the embargo. The opposite opinion is that we shouldn't trade with a person who has tried to place nuclear weapons so close to our shores. Mind you, this doesn't mean he didn't have a right to do this. It is just that we don't have to like it and our embargo is one response to not liking his actions.
Your conclusion is flawed and your premise is not supported except by reason 1. The main rationale to keep the embargo remain.
1. The person(s) who directly threatened the US by allowing (or at least wanting) nukes onto his land is still in power. Our response, the embargo, to that action (the embargo is a response to other actions by the Cuban government as well) should remain while the person who threatened us remains.
2. The embargo is a political chip used in US internal politics. It doesn't harm the US but its removal de-focuses the political conversation in South Florida. Keeping this conversation going is more important now than actually removing the embargo.
3. A signification portion of American citizens of Cuban decent still support the embargo. The rest of us should support them since the embargo doesn't hurt the US. This last one is a little bit more difficult to determine but they still seem to be voting for people who vote to keep the embargo.
The opposing conclusion would be: Trade with Cuba is not a right the US even remotely has to recognize. If they want trade with us, then they have to do it on our terms we can agree with. Normally this type of trade wouldn't be a problem. We will practice capitalism in a heart beat. But China didn't park nukes off our coast. The dictators in the Middle East are never going to be a threaten to us legitimately. Cuba was direct threat and because they were and because of the special historical relationship and because the person who directly threatened us is still in power, the embargo should stay. The embargo shouldn't last forever. But, it should last until at least Fidel dies.
I am not as ideologically against lifting the embargo as I once was, but I would like a lifting of the embargo to be accompanied by a return to those the property that was stolen from them by the revolutionary government of Castro when they won the revolution more than 50 years ago.
Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President
You said that Cuba is isolated. I showed that they are not. I have no idea what "unite completely" has to do with being isolated, nevermind taking one country at a time.
another poster referred to your posts as incoherent. This one was a good example of that incoherence
Yes, then we can move rigs into the North Cuba Basin and start drilling for oil.
Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb
i'd imagine that cuba is better off with the embargo, actually. it's not like america isn't flooded with cuban
cigars, regardless of the embargo. and side-stepping the whole "tax/tariff" situation to sell on the black market
is probably preferable and more profitable to all concerned.
“The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.”