YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsEmbargo


December 31, 1997
Re "Time to Look at Cuba," editorial, Dec. 22: We have to remember what the problem, now obscured by human rights considerations, really is: the expropriation of American assets by the Communist government. We want the assets back. How can we get them? It's simple. The president merely has to offer to Fidel Castro that he will lift the blockade and return to normal relations if Castro will return to us all of the expropriated assets (hotels, refineries, commercial buildings, mining companies, etc.)
May 2, 1985 | WILLIAM R. LONG, Times Staff Writer
The Sandinista government Wednesday decried Washington's planned embargo on U.S.-Nicaraguan trade as "a new escalation of aggression" in the war it said the Reagan Administration "has declared against the people of Nicaragua." Vice President Sergio Ramirez said the embargo is aimed at destroying the Sandinista revolution and will seriously affect the national economy. But Ramirez insisted that the revolution will not be jeopardized.
March 26, 1998
Re your March 23 editorial: Supporting measures that supposedly "are meant to benefit the people of Cuba" (President Clinton's cosmetic gesture of removing sanctions he imposed in 1996, even as Washington's embargo remains intact), The Times in fact supports this action as an element to strengthen direct U.S. intervention in Cuba. That's what it means when your editorial hails Clinton's initiative as proof "that the United States is moving to pave the way for an eventual transition to democracy" in Cuba.
June 6, 1990 | From Times Wire Services
Switzerland's national airline Swissair, which traditionally has posted profits, today said it has imposed a recruitment embargo because of poor results on North Atlantic and Far East routes and foreign exchange setbacks. Previous cost-cutting measures, including partial hiring restrictions, failed to prevent continued setbacks in April, Swissair said. Overall revenue rose 3% compared to April, 1989, the airline said, but costs before depreciation were 10% higher.
January 13, 1991
The U.N. Security Council voted on whether or not to use force on Saddam. If soldiers die, won't their families suffer? I think we should take care of America, not Kuwait. Why are we spending money on the Middle East's problems, when we have problems of our own that have been going on for years, like the homeless? If we keep up the embargo on Iraq, I'm sure the Iraqis will give in and give up on Saddam, because they would soon die of starvation. SHELLEY DONAVAN, Fifth-grader, La Costa Heights Elementary, Carlsbad
October 7, 1987 | SARA FRITZ, Times Staff Writer
Both the Senate and House, angered by news that Iran is using American dollars to fund its assault on international shipping in the Persian Gulf, voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to ban all U.S. imports of crude oil and other products from Iran. The legislation, which will be sent to President Reagan after differences between the House and Senate bill are resolved, would immediately halt all imports from Iran unless the Administration requested a six-month delay.
November 3, 1990
Is this the best that the left can do? Speaking as a "red diaper" baby, I remember asking my father why he went to war with Hitler and I remember his answer: "Because Hitler had to be stopped and war was the only way. There was no other alternative." He went to war, not rashly, but deliberately, reading his copy of Walt Whitman to sustain him. I can now see why the left is ineffective. It wants the easy way out; to look good without the pain of being good. This is what the left should be saying: Liberate Kuwait --I cannot justify inaction when a population is being systematically destroyed.
Los Angeles Times Articles