4 ms·
> If communism and socialism is so bad, why is there even a need for an embargo? Given that Cuba's regime was responsible for putting nuclear weapons next to t
by rualca 5y ago
> If communism and socialism is so bad, why is there even a need for an embargo?
Given that Cuba's regime was responsible for putting nuclear weapons next to the border and pointing straight to the US, and given the fact that a sizeable portion of the population of a swing state lived Cuba's oppression in the first person, only the most nieve can believe this has anything to do with ideology.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- EarthIsHome 5y agoEvents don't happen in a vacuum. The US placed missiles at the border of the USSR and pointed them at the USSR [0], and in response, the USSR placed missiles in Cuba. It was the US that provoked those missiles. These are responses to US aggression. Look at it from a historical perspective. > In response to the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev agreed to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to deter a future invasion. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
- mullingitover 5y agoA bit of context to this factoid: - The US backed a coup that put Fulgencio Batista in power - Batista murdered over 20,000 Cubans (not my words, that's what John F. Kennedy said) - Cubans were in horrific poverty exactly because of US policies - When Cubans overthrew the dictator who was murdering them by the tens of thousands, the US attempted to invade them, the most likely aim being another US-backed dictatorship The US embargo is purely sour grapes over losing access to a country's natural resources it wanted to exploit coupled with, as you point out, a dysfunction in the way US elections work. Pointing nukes at a ruthless, amoral enemy with vast resources was a perfectly valid reaction for Cuba given the context.
- google234123 5y agoBatista feel because the US cut off arms supplies and withdrew its support. Obviously, they weren't aware that Fidel Castro was not just a typical rebel and would become one of the cruellest tyrants in recent history.
- qshaman 5y ago> The US backed a coup that put Fulgencio Batista in power Source? Not even Cuban propaganda have said that ever, read a little bit of history.
- mullingitover 5y agoGiven the US track record with coups in Latin America[1] in the 18th and 19th century, I would place the burden of proof on anyone claiming that a Latin American coup was not US-backed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- qshaman 5y agoThat's not how it works, before Batista's coup, the president was Prios Socarras, that had no beef with the US, I would say the opposite. Batista's coup, was an inside job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Military_coup_and_second_presidency_(1952%E2%80%931959) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#Military_cou...
- mullingitover 5y ago> In 1952, Batista again ran for president. In a three-way race, Roberto Agramonte of the Orthodox Party led in all the polls, followed by Carlos Hevia of the Authentic Party. Batista's United Action coalition was running a distant third. Batista was losing to a left-wing candidate, did a coup, and there was no election. Then he continued to support US corporate interests. This doesn't track at all with, you know, *gestures broadly at US intervention in Latin America* to you?