You're pointing to the blockade of Venezuelan oil which just started. How does that explain the failure of Cuba to develop for the six decades before that?
You're pointing to the blockade of Venezuelan oil which just started. How does that explain the failure of Cuba to develop for the six decades before that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...
> companies that do business with the U.S. which trade in Cuba do so at the risk of U.S. sanctions. The U.S. has threatened to stop financial aid to other countries if they trade non-food items with Cuba.
> The U.S. government has pursued extraterritorial measures to enforce its embargo. Cuban ambassador Ricardo Alarcón cited 27 recent cases of trade contracts interrupted by U.S. pressure to the U.N. in 1991. British Petroleum was seemingly dissuaded by U.S. authorities from investing in offshore oil exploration in Cuba despite initially expressing interest. In 1992, the U.S. State Department discouraged firms like Royal Dutch Shell and Clyde Petroleum from investing in Cuba.
From “how is the us sabotaging Cuba?” To “but that just started” in one message. Fantastic stuff, hope you didn’t pay much for that law degree.
“It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour”
Thomas Jefferson
In law school, we learn that context is important! OP said: “‘Communism can never work,’ says leader of country that routinely sabotages or outright overthrows communist governments.”
It’s not like Cuba was working great until February 2026.
The context being that you _knew_ the US is sabotaging Cuba right now, but still acted as if it was an outlandish assertion. It shows you are presenting arguments in bad faith.
What’s bad faith is trying to wave away Cuba’s failure since 1959 by pointing at something Trump did last month.
If that’s your real objection, you’re responding to the wrong commenter. What you’ve written is not a position they have advanced here.
Which poster are you talking about? The original post from which this stemmed, which I was responding to, was about whether communism ever worked. Insofar as Cuba is a poster child for communism not working, it’s not because of anything Trump did in 2026.
Could you imagine Cuba with the per capita GDP of Florida?
Geopolitical and sovereignty awkwardness aside (big aside I know)…. it’s obvious Cuba, and especially the average Cuban, would benefit immensely from the island becoming a US state, no?
In an alternate universe, instead of the Castro 1959 takeover, a pro-US faction took over and requested annexation, and was accepted, since 1950s Americans all would have thought it was cool to have another cool tropical island paradise state. The Hawaii of the east coast!
If anyone thinks Cuba is better off in any metric now than they would have been in that alternate reality, I’d love to hear why.
> If anyone thinks Cuba is better off in any metric now than they would have been in that alternate reality, I’d love to hear why.
I mean, pre-Castro Cuba was basically a playground for the US rich. Like, the whole revolution was about kicking those people out.
Personally, I think that's morally justified, but I don't agree that what the US has done to them since then is morally justified. Obviously people differ on their opinions of this stuff, but collective punishment (which is what the US embargoes are) is generally regarded as a war crime.
> Obviously people differ on their opinions of this stuff, but collective punishment (which is what the US embargoes are) is generally regarded as a war crime
The definitions really keep mutating on the left don’t they. Economic sanctions are a “war crime,” “silence is violence,” etc.
> 2019, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute adopted an amendment to the definition of war crimes applicable in NIAC detailed in article 8(2)(e). The new article (8(2)(e)(xix) prohibits the intentional use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including the deliberate prevention of relief.
Fuel for cooking food and providing heat is necessary for survival; deliberate prevention of this aid from reaching Cuba is a war crime.
> The definitions really keep mutating on the left don’t they. Economic sanctions are a “war crime,” “silence is violence,” etc.
You may have me confused with someone else, as I have never said anything about silence is violence.
Economic sanctions are definitely a method of waging war. The loss falls mostly on the ordinary people of the country, and as such are collective punishment and war crimes.
Now, is it better than bombing the people back to the Stone Age? Definitely in the short-term, but one look at what happened to Iraq after ten years of sanctions (everyone who could left) and the impact this had on post 2003 reconstruction would seem to suggest that it's the difference between acute and chronic illnesses.