U.N. overwhelmingly condemns U.S. embargo on Cuba; U.S. votes 'No'

I think it's time the UN moved its headquarters away from the US, perhaps even to Havana.

Havana would have to guarantee no travel restrictions for everyone, and have to cede extraterritorial rights (the land occupied by UN HQ and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the UN and not the U.S. government - technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement).

On the other hand, Americans are ambivalent at best, and most NYers bristle at the worse-than-normal Manhattan gridlock whenever there's UN gatherings, the restrictions on movement around UN HQ, and the huge million$$ worth of security arrangements and lodgings required for some 200 countries dignitaries and their entourages (not to mention the year-around annoyance of UN diplomats ignoring tens of millions of dollars in unpaid illegal parking tickets - they don't care when they park illegally; they know they're not gonna pay it nor can anyone make them to).

So most Americans probably wouldn't care. It's quite ironic that one of the biggest proponents of basing the UN HQ in the US was the Soviet Union. (When a vote on the location of the HQ was taken in London in 1945, the UK, France, Netherlands, and Canada voted for a European HQ. The rest --from Latin America (Brazil, Chile, and Mexico), the smaller nations of Europe (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia), the Pacific (Australia and China), the Soviet Union, and Iran-- voted for in the U.S.)

The really sad part of this is that an almost unanimous vote by the General Assembly means nothing. I think it's time the UN moved its headquarters away from the US, perhaps even to Havana. What an economic jolt that would give the Isla Bonita! And a real slap upside the head to the US.

Obama is still committed to ending the Cuba embargo, but since it's law, only the U.S. Congress can change the law.

The U.S. would had voted to abstain and the U.N. resolution would had been completely unopposed and thus putting more pressure on Congress to change the law -- had Cuba kept the text mentioning "the spirit of engagement between the U.S. and Cuban President Raul Castro" -- but for some reason, Cuba left that text out and missed an opportunity to put more pressure on Congress to change the law.

Good for the UN.

Cuban-Americans under the age of 30 favor normalizing relations with Cuba.

Older Cuban-Americans 65 years-plus also were more supportive of the embargo, with 45 percent saying it should continue and 36 percent saying it shouldn’t (19 percent said they didn’t know or didn’t respond). In contrast, 51 percent of those 18 to 29 said the embargo should end, and 56 percent in the group of 30- to 49-year-olds said it shouldn’t continue

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article17056742.html#storylink=cpy

Maintaining an embargo on Cuba makes zero sense. The US Congress is stuck in the 1960's.

I have little doubt, though, that as the number of US corporations line up to do business in Cuba that will change. The various members of congress will get larger campaign donations from the companies seeing Cuba's market potential and congress will reverse course. Except, perhaps the teabags who long to return to a mythical era that never was.

Now the true BULLY self appoint global policeman US government.