Glad to see that Blueflame is so willing to enlighten us here with the propaganda of the miserable government that still oppresses the Cuban people.
It is sufficient to note that, notwithstanding the bold assertions in the comtemptable screed above, the Cuban people are neither free, noir independent, nor sovereign. They are under the thumb of a backward tyrant who has ruled them in the most authoritarian manner for over forty years - and never once held an election.
Now with respect to the rather more thoughtful comments by Fbaezer--
Quote: My personal belief is that the US was too worried about socialism and not worried enough about democracy.
An interesting observation with respect to the Cold war. However, please note that our Cold War opponents - and as well many of the "non aligned nations" - styled themselves as democracies or "peoples democracies" even though they were almost all avowedly Socialist -- and authoritarian, in many cases, rather awful tyrannies. They freely identified themselves as socialistic and were successful in making that (and the imaginary benefits they promised) the issue between us. One could argue that we failed to confront and reverse this gambit, but, frankly I don't see how it could have been done. So many of the self-described "intellectuals" of the West clung to the illusions promised by Soviet and other forms of Socialism, often in the face of overwhelming evidence of the brutality and incompetence of these regimes and the backward economic systems they fostered.
The first generation of post-colonial African rulers adopted the "Social Democratic" models then much loved by international "intellectuals". Nearly all degenerasted into corrupt, inept authoritarian dictatorships that wasted a generation to poverty and tyranny.
The other, perhaps more benign forms of authoritarianism to which you referred, ranging (in the Western hemisphere) from Peronism to the PRI, produced - at best - stagnation (Mexico) and at worst a near permanent national neurosis (Argentina). All of these systems were Democratic in form and all stoutly resisted any suggestion that they were otherwise. However they also limited freedom and suppressed free economic activity on the part of their people. Even Uruguay isn't much to brag about.(Mexico has - happily - on its own, broken free of its former stagnation, and, though there are undoubtedly difficulties ahead, will almost certainly grow in prosperity and freedom.)
We were indeed interested in profits for our companies, but we were interested in freedom too. We can be justifiably criticized for some inconsistency in pursuing these goals, but I think we can be forgiven for concluding that a Cuba, backed by the Soviet Union, posed a more proximate hazard to us than (say) a Romania led by a crazed Socialist tyrant and trusted by no one.
I don't think that either you or I truly knows what were Castro's true thoughts and beliefs, either then or now. It is sufficient to note his actions. Clearly he was disposed to be an authoritarian tyrant in any evolution his revolution might take. Frankly I don't give much importance to the thoretical debates among authoritarian figures (revolutionaries or otherwise) who are clearly all disposed to enforce their beliefs as to how people should live - with or without their consent. Do the different shades of the theologies behind their totalitarian authoritarianism really matter at all? I don't think so.
We did indeed have comparable embargoes against Mao's China and North Koreas. Mostly it was done as a security measure to prevent (or merely limit) infiltration and the export of militarily useful technologies.
The matter of the Cuban embargo is interesting only as an indicator of the degree to which people will focus on trivia in the face of serious issues.
Again, Cuba has no money with which to buy our goods, and produces nothing we have a great interest in buying. (The Dominican Cohibas are a most acceptable substitute, and, besides I have cut back on the cigars.)
One can pity the Cuban people and wish that they would rise up and claim their freedom. However - as is so often the case - they have not. For our part we should avoid the assumption that we are suitable reformers for the world. We should focus only on those issues which truly threaten us. Overall, I think we have followed that standard reasonably well. We have not always been either wise or successful, but overall done a bit better in our moment in history's sun than did most who have gone before us.
