The argument of "defensive measures" sounds quite different if you take into account:
1) Operation Mongoose, 2) the history of US-led terror campaigns and regime changes in Central America (Guatemala, anyone?), 3) the killing of Soviet technicians on Cuba by Cuban exiles, armed and trained by the US, 4) the century-long almost pathological need by the US to control Cuba. Not to mention of the Soviets had knowledge of the secret deployment of missiles to Okinawa just months earlier.

Don't make JFK out to be a man of peace. He signed National Security Memorandum No 181 in August of '62, which detailed regime change followed by an invasion of Cuba. He put into place a terror campaign against Cuba to bring them back into line. A terror campaign that was resumed a mere week after the crisis by blowing up a factory, causing the death of 400+ on November 8th.

Also, the offer came from Khrushchev, not the other way around, if I remember correctly. And while the Soviets didn't wage a terror campaign against Turkey or Italy once the outdated Jupiter missiles had been removed, we all know what has been done to Cuba over the following decades.

Very, very interesting -- thanks for the sift!

I'd love to see more, specifically about the US / Cuba talks and the Pope's involvement. As an atheist, I tend to think of Catholicism / the Pope / organized religion in general as generally having a primarily negative influence on world affairs (Crusades, Inquisition, birth control, anti-condoms, molestation, homophobia, etc.), but negotiating peace and better relations between the US and Cuba is a pretty undeniably positive thing.

I knew Latin American countries were highly Catholic, but I kinda figured that some of the USSR anti-religious stance would have rubbed off on Cuba. I guess maybe it did, but the missile crisis and fall of the Berlin wall / end of the cold war was long enough ago that Cuba has greater freedom to make up their own minds on this sort of thing.

Enough so that perhaps the Pope's involvement was necessary, or at least very helpful, to act as a mediator between the two sides. Props where props are due.

Anyway, all quite interesting.

Cuba is one of my favourite places to travel to. If you ever get the chance to (and the US will get it very soon,) I recommend going. Go off the resorts, talk and meet with everyone.

As for computers, technology and the ilk, there is a black market for it. A lot of tourists have deals set up where they bring in tablets, phones, clothing for people and get paid well for it.

I was talking to one of the guides from Moron (yes, actually named that.) They said aside from drugs, the second highest black market industry is high fashion. They essentially see what the tourists are wearing, and then they try and copy, hand make, bargain for the same clothes. Tech works the same way, they see the cameras, phones, tablets, and either cobble together something from parts they have around, or they make a deal.

It's a really rad place, food, dancing, people, if you get a chance to go, go. You will love it. =)

Listen, I'm a pretty tolerant guy, but children could be watching this - you're going too far when you start endorsing freaks like Cuba Gooding Jr.

People would say "Portugal.. isn't that right next to Cuba? "

"Puerto Rico. Brazil. Mexico.. it's all the same really, tho. Eh?"

*wink nudge

My arguments were only about what the argument of legal rights, nothing else. I actually have three friends in Guam and I feel I'm more educated about the situation there than most Americans on the mainland. So thank you for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments, and keep in mind that I wasn't touching the socio-economic aspects of the situation, just John Oliver's misguided presentation of the facts.

Personally I'd love to see PR and Guam join. As for "why"... there are two main camps that I think might be right.

1)They honestly don't care. This mixes somewhat with the "they prefer the benefits of living in a Territory over what they'd gain by becoming a state." For example, if you live in PR and all of your income is made within the bounds of PR, then you don't have to pay US Federal Income Taxes. To me that doesn't really seem like a big deal. I think the people in this group would lean towards statehood if they weren't given the option to remain a territory (i.e. statehood or independence only).

2)They seem the fact that the US is still there as a remnant of military imperialism and they don't want to reward the US. In 1899 Samoa was carved up between Germany and the US during the stupid Kaiser's chest-pounding Imperialism phase that led up to WW1. Puerto Rico and Guam were both taken from the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. Cuba and the Philippines were as well, and those two chose independence and are now independent nations (Cuba was a special situation). The Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark during WW1 and the Marianas were taken from Japan during WW2. So... maybe these places feel like they aren't fully American. But honestly, I think that (with a possible exception of a large portion of Puerto Rico) this isn't the case. Or maybe they simply don't think they'd be an economically viable nation if they left. Look to Nauru as a great example of how fragile a small island's economy can be.

Puerto Rico had a really weird vote in 2012 that seemed to indicate statehood... but the ballot was horribly illegal (you can't have multiple, dependent questions of differing types on the same ballot)... so we'll have to wait til they redo it again with competence to see if they really mean it.

Add to all of this the comfort of the status quo. There's a certain philosophy of finding the sucky stuff that you're used to more palatable than the unknown.

But honestly... I don't know.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.

More Conan in Cuba:

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Conan-Dines-At-A-Cuban-Paladar

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Conan-Learns-To-Dance-Cuban-Rumba

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Conan-Visits-The-Havana-Club-Rum-Museum

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Conan-Visits-Havanas-El-Malecon

"Conan In Cuba" Open has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

"Conan In Cuba" Open has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

"Conan In Cuba" Open has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

"Conan In Cuba" Open has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

That was absolutely fascinating -- great sift!

A few random thoughts:
-If any video has ever better demonstrated the idiom "necessity is the mother of invention", I don't know what it is.
-Castro was very very clever to anticipate the technological needs of his people and have the army print that "field guide" book that spurred on greater independent development.
-Some of the things they came up with remind me of working on my family farm. Every day is an exercise in problem solving -- how to solve problem A given a set of tools/resources B. And often the things in B don't really lend themselves towards A... So you end up hammering in a nail with a brick, or patching a friction hole in a metal pipe with a few layers of plastic from a 2 liter bottle and duct tape.
-That artist Oroza is a great combination of artist, historian, archeologist, and storyteller.
-We (the US) still have sanctions against Cuba, but I can't really say why that is warranted...

ELI5: Why is Cuba so isolated, and in such economic distress given that the sanctions are US only, and China and the rest of the world could easily trade with them. I'd think they'd have access to all modern technology not coming from US companies. I understand the citizens don't make much, but I'd think a robust world trade would have made them a bit better off... Is everyone so afraid the US will sanction those who trade with Cuba?

Art is not about what is shown, but what is revealed by being hidden... not by what the artist does, but by what the artist is kept from doing as a result of obstructions, impediments, and rules that force creativity, not unlike a specific meter or rhyme in poetry..