5 ms·

This line of questioning can be continued indefinitely. Did Cuba bomb US territories(Japan), practice Apartheid (South Africa) or nationalize their oil (Iran).

mc32 5y ago
Well, they did agitate all over Africa and LatAM in conjunction with KGB operatives and provided thousands of troops to overthrow governments and did plot to kill dissidents on US soil... But I guess the answer is yes, embargoes make sense when we disagree vehemently with another country and its policies. But I know what people are saying: "I want you to embargo countries I don't like, and I want you to not embargo countries I like." and everyone will have a different set of countries.
- quijoteuniv 5y ago
  With these line of thought I guess the whole world should embargo the US. :)
  - mc32 5y ago
    That's their prerogative, isn't it?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      Ought and prerogative are different things.
  - NoOneNew 5y ago
    The rest of the world is also welcome to pay the $10+ billion in humanitarian aid the US pays for. Along with the $2 billion portion of the UN budget. Along with the $3 billion to NATO. When 5k US troops were being pulled from Germany, that news wasn't greeted with applause, but with Merkel shitting herself. Yea, the US isnt perfect. Spending $15b on the world that just loves to take a shit on us... fine by me. I for one dont disagree with isolationist policies too much. This country is made up of folks that left other countries for a reason. Why interfere with the world stage? It's not like there are any other super powers that'll exploit that power vacuum. The US is the only super power with big bad, evil intentions in the world.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      ==When 5k US troops were being pulled from Germany, that news wasn't greeted with applause, but with Merkel shitting herself.== ==Spending $15b on the world that just loves to take a shit on us== Which is it, do they love to take a shit on us or do they welcome our help and shit themselves when we leave? Maybe things are just as complex from Germany's perspective as they are from the US perspective. Per capita humanitarian aid by country (US is 17th) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- random314 5y ago
  > Well, they did agitate all over Africa and LatAM in conjunction with KGB operatives This implies implicit US dominion over Africa and latam. KGB was supported by the Soviets, which did not face the same level of embargoes as Cuba did.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Maybe but Khrushchev wasn’t the one begging to press the button to send the nukes over to the US. Cuba made the decision to launch and it was only Khrushchev who was able to overrule those bloodthirsty Castroists.
    - random314 5y ago
      Argument switches in every reply don't make for a good debate. Like I said this can continue indefinitely. Cuba has never been a nuclear power. Maybe check this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
      - mc32 5y ago
        They had the USSR's nukes on the island. They were ready to fire (unbeknownst to Kennedy). Cuba had them, and the crisis had escalated so much Cuba wanted to launch. Castro demanded they be allowed to launch[1]. But Khrushchev declined. They wanted to bomb us (and unleash Armageddon) because they felt aggrieved. Khrushchev was so taken aback by their cavalier attitude towards nukes that he took them back. So yes, for a few months they were a nuclear power. This is confirmed by the USSR archives of that time plus interviews with Cuban officials back in the 90s where they conceded they wanted to bomb us and only Khrushchev kept it from happening. [1]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/jfk-defendcuba/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/jfk-def... Excerpt of above link (Khrushchev's response to Castro): "In your cable of October 27 you proposed that we be the first to carry out a nuclear strike against the enemy's territory. Naturally you understand where that would lead us. It would not be a simple strike, but the start of a thermonuclear world war."

mc32 5y ago

Well, they did agitate all over Africa and LatAM in conjunction with KGB operatives and provided thousands of troops to overthrow governments and did plot to kill dissidents on US soil... But I guess the answer is yes, embargoes make sense when we disagree vehemently with another country and its policies. But I know what people are saying: "I want you to embargo countries I don't like, and I want you to not embargo countries I like." and everyone will have a different set of countries.

quijoteuniv 5y ago
With these line of thought I guess the whole world should embargo the US. :)
- mc32 5y ago
  That's their prerogative, isn't it?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Ought and prerogative are different things.
- NoOneNew 5y ago
  The rest of the world is also welcome to pay the $10+ billion in humanitarian aid the US pays for. Along with the $2 billion portion of the UN budget. Along with the $3 billion to NATO. When 5k US troops were being pulled from Germany, that news wasn't greeted with applause, but with Merkel shitting herself. Yea, the US isnt perfect. Spending $15b on the world that just loves to take a shit on us... fine by me. I for one dont disagree with isolationist policies too much. This country is made up of folks that left other countries for a reason. Why interfere with the world stage? It's not like there are any other super powers that'll exploit that power vacuum. The US is the only super power with big bad, evil intentions in the world.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    ==When 5k US troops were being pulled from Germany, that news wasn't greeted with applause, but with Merkel shitting herself.== ==Spending $15b on the world that just loves to take a shit on us== Which is it, do they love to take a shit on us or do they welcome our help and shit themselves when we leave? Maybe things are just as complex from Germany's perspective as they are from the US perspective. Per capita humanitarian aid by country (US is 17th) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
random314 5y ago
> Well, they did agitate all over Africa and LatAM in conjunction with KGB operatives This implies implicit US dominion over Africa and latam. KGB was supported by the Soviets, which did not face the same level of embargoes as Cuba did.
- mc32 5y ago
  Maybe but Khrushchev wasn’t the one begging to press the button to send the nukes over to the US. Cuba made the decision to launch and it was only Khrushchev who was able to overrule those bloodthirsty Castroists.
  - random314 5y ago
    Argument switches in every reply don't make for a good debate. Like I said this can continue indefinitely. Cuba has never been a nuclear power. Maybe check this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
    - mc32 5y ago
      They had the USSR's nukes on the island. They were ready to fire (unbeknownst to Kennedy). Cuba had them, and the crisis had escalated so much Cuba wanted to launch. Castro demanded they be allowed to launch[1]. But Khrushchev declined. They wanted to bomb us (and unleash Armageddon) because they felt aggrieved. Khrushchev was so taken aback by their cavalier attitude towards nukes that he took them back. So yes, for a few months they were a nuclear power. This is confirmed by the USSR archives of that time plus interviews with Cuban officials back in the 90s where they conceded they wanted to bomb us and only Khrushchev kept it from happening. [1]https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/jfk-defendcuba/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/jfk-def... Excerpt of above link (Khrushchev's response to Castro): "In your cable of October 27 you proposed that we be the first to carry out a nuclear strike against the enemy's territory. Naturally you understand where that would lead us. It would not be a simple strike, but the start of a thermonuclear world war."