The three countries who voted against lifting the embargo?


Recommended Posts

The United Nations General Assembly has voted in favor of a resolution requesting that the United States repeal its forty seven year old trade embargo against the island nation of Cuba.

The 192 member world body voted 185 in favor, three against with two abstentions. Last year, the vote was 184 to four with one country abstaining from voting. The resolution is nonbinding and has had no impact on U.S. policy in past years.

Question to members:

Who are the three who voted against lifting the embargo :-)

OK....I will give you the USA as one :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

israel without question. that is despite all theiur bakdoor investment in the placeand the fact that mossad helped with fidel's security after the kgb went belly-up, or so people in the supposed know claim.

the other, please don't tell me it is us, will be some tiny iland nation from micronesia or something. for some reason palau rings a bell, though that may be for betraying the whales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

» » United States, Israel and Palau

» »

» » Where the hell is Palau and why do they care?

»

»

» Hmmmm I am guessing they receive a good deal of US moola :-D

lol...we were just talking about this today in my International Law class. The two abstentions were the Marshall Islands and Micronesia. The U.S. usually has a handful of other countries vote with it on items such as this, but it is not unusual. All the Permanent members of the Security Council do the same thing...its always nice to not be the sole no vote to a resolution :-D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prez, how does the trademark issue come in to play with the US home to so many marque "knock offs" post revolution. Worldwide, as I understand it, the trademark issues prevent certain premium brands fromt the US being sold in Europe let's say.

Day one of the Embargo lift, a Cuban Montecristo would not be able to be imported to the US because of the Domincan version. Right or wrong (or is it someplace in between)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palau gained its independence October 1, 1994, when the Compact of Free Association with the United States came into force. Palau was the last portion of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to gain its independence. Under the Compact, the U.S. remains responsible for Palau's defense for 50 years, and Palauans are allowed to serve in the U.S. military without having to possess permanent residency in the U.S. :lookaround:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

» Day one of the Embargo lift, a Cuban Montecristo would not be able to be

» imported to the US because of the Domincan version. Right or wrong (or is

» it someplace in between)?

Altadis owns a number of the NC names including Montecristo. They formerly owned a half stake

in Habanos. Unless I am mistaken, Altadis is now a "wholly owned subsidiary" of Imperial Tobacco,

who bought out Altadis, including their stake in Habanos SA.

So, for the brands Imperial owns, it may not be an issue. General Cigar also owns a number of

brands, including Bolivar, Punch, amd HdM to name a few. I've no idea how that will work out.

As for being "knock offs", remember that all these brands were owned by people before being

taken away by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

» As for being "knock offs", remember that all these brands were owned by

» people before being

» taken away by the government.

Definitely understand the origins of teh new / old brand names and did not mean any disrespect for the premium nature of many of these brands, after all it is the NC premiums I cut my teeth on...

Yet that is directly to my point, there is a lot to be lost in terms of marketing postion, market share (thus revenue) for these NC brands when the original brands become more available.

And do the personal family issues/positons in the names or ownerships have an impact? As we all know a small majority of the US popoulation in the Miami area have for years influenced policy towards Cuba. Will not this same type of personal influence be exerted in the cigar industry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

» Yet that is directly to my point, there is a lot to be lost in terms of

» marketing postion, market share (thus revenue) for these NC brands when

» the original brands become more available.

Obviously, I do not "know" what will eventually happen. But my thoughts are that since the NC brands

are owned by large corporations, and as stated some by Imperial already, once enough money

has been spread around, it won't be an issue.

As for the naming issues, let's use the NC Montecristo as an example. There is already Montecristo

Platinum, White, Dark, etc, etc. I can't see a problem simply having two lines - ley's say Montecristo,

and Montecristo Dominican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

» once enough money

» has been spread around, it won't be an issue.

Yes the overlapping ownership will make it easier to come to market both in the US and for some of the premium NCs in other world markets.

I will also guess that once the US market opens up that Faux CC emporiums, especialy on-line will become more prolific than they are today. I have got to believe that will costy us somehow as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

» » Yet that is directly to my point, there is a lot to be lost in terms of

» » marketing postion, market share (thus revenue) for these NC brands when

» » the original brands become more available.

»

» Obviously, I do not "know" what will eventually happen. But my thoughts

» are that since the NC brands

» are owned by large corporations, and as stated some by Imperial already,

» once enough money

» has been spread around, it won't be an issue.

»

» As for the naming issues, let's use the NC Montecristo as an example.

» There is already Montecristo

» Platinum, White, Dark, etc, etc. I can't see a problem simply having two

» lines - ley's say Montecristo,

» and Montecristo Dominican.

i would not be so sure. certainly where there is overlapping ownership, one would assume that internal decisions will be made to which we will never be privy though i suspect that they won't be as easy as you think. if, however, there are any instances of a conflict in ownership, there is huge potential for legal action to resolve it. i've never practiced in that area of law, either here or the states, but if company X has been making brand Y for 50 years and selling them in the states and then the embargo comes down and the original brand Y becomes available, one has to think that company X would fight tooth and nail. it would be a fascinating case to follow. that said, one suspects that the reality may involve the old corporate two-step with mergers, acquistions etc. the wild card is just how much rancour still exists because of the last 50 years, on either side. won't take much for it to get nasty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.