Not the most convincing argument

Yet he has defended the indefensible by saying that sanctions will remain in place until the communist government in Cuba frees political prisoners and improves human rights, just like his predecessor.

Yes, I think the embargo is a very stupid policy and one which props up the Castros.

However, I don\’t see the above as being a particularly convincing argument: \”you\’re bastards for insisting we have a little freedom and liberty in Cuba\” just doesn\’t quite cut it.

Oh, and, full marks for spotting, as you obviously have done, that exactly the same argument is used in reverse in Sri Lanka. No more trade goodies with the EU unless you stop being beastly to the Tamils…..a policy fully supported by similar lefties.

4 comments on “Not the most convincing argument

  1. Oh! OH! But Timmy, Cubans are COMMITTED to SOCIAL JUSTICE and therefore anything that hinders them is WICKED and EVIL, but Sri Lankans are RACISTS and CAPITALISTS oppressing a DEFENCELESS MINORITY of PEACE-LOVING victims of WESTERN IMPERIALISM.

    Surely ANYONE can see that.

  2. It’s always fun to watch apologists for the Cuban dictatorship blame the Communist regime’s failures on not being able to trade openly.

  3. The difference between the two is covered in “The J-Curve” quite nicely – in essence sanctions will never work on Cuba because Castro’s government wants to be isolated and to control its people’s access to information. Sri Lanka wishes to trade and to be connected to the world, so sanctions will work. If the Americans were serious about destroying Castro they’d open the borders and let the buggers trade until the Cuban people have worked out what a hell-hole they live in

    Tim adds: Yes, I should have remembered that. I reviewed the book for one of the papers so I really should have….

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.