Awesome smackdown from AJ. Delgado. She’s a proud Cuban-American from Little Havana, attorney, conservative commentator, blogger and author.
Arguing with idiots about #Cuba
Due to the Obama Administration’s renewal of diplomatic relations with Cuba, Cuba is back in the news.
As usual, there is an alarming amount of misinformation — and stupidity — circulating that has me looking like this at my desk:
and wanting to do this:
Let’s address some of the most common arguments heard in favor of relations — vs the truth.
“The embargo hasn’t worked in five decades — don’t you think it’s time to try something new???”
A fair enough point. But let’s look at this with the right information. The fact is saying the embargo “hasn’t worked” is inaccurate, since its sole goal was never to topple the regime: the embargo has been successful in (1) helping to stop Cuba from spreading its ideology and its terror elsewhere in the world, and (2) preventing the Cuban regime from using Americans’ cash to fund repression (unless, of course, you’re cool with funding repression).
At the very least, it has served a punitive goal and sends a moral statement that Americans won’t do business with, well, monsters.
Remember, embargoes’ aims can be:
2) to make a moral statement;
3) containment of the nation;
4) coercive (i.e., used as leverage to gain certain concessions and perhaps even regime change).
Sure, the embargo hasn’t accomplished the last but it’s accomplished the first three (worth noting: containment — not toppling the regime — was the original aim).
And, with the USSR gone, and its Cuban-sugar-daddy replacement, Venezuela, barely hanging on… Cuba is in dire straits. Now is the time when the 4th potential outcome (toppling the regime) could work — and thus precisely NOT the time to yank the embargo. Shouldn’t we at least try to gain some concessions (in the form of fundamental human rights) before lifting it? Why lift it and get nothing in return? Why give away the milk for free when you’ve held out for five decades?
At its very core, the anti-embargo argument boils down to a common error: “Because of A ‘failing’ to have its intended effect (A = embargo) and B existing (B = a totalitarian regime), that must mean B is caused or helped up by A. So if we eliminate A, then B would disappear.” It is a textbook example of a logical fallacy.
“But we do business with other repressive regimes.”
Hm, I’m aware.
Continue reading Arguing with idiots about #Cuba HERE.