Again. then why doesnt the USA do the same to iceland and thailand? They don't have anything to gain from them either? I can see you logic but I don't think it holds up in all honesty

ok so the embargos put on cuba initially aren't because america didn't have anything to gain from them, im saying the reason THEY STILL EXIST.

but there is also still an actual dictatorship present in Cuba which is a way more reasonable answer, in my opinion

It was not for political reasons.

You're trying to say that one nation essentially blacklisting another nation from Western international commerce through myriad tactics for decades is primarily political feuding, which is plainly ridiculous.

I suppose "political reasons" were also the deciding factor for the multiple countries in South America in which the American government funded local death squads to murder citizen landowners, turn democratically successful nations into proxy installations, and destabilize the region to justify assuming control of their resources — under the guise of democratic intervention.

i literally said this before,

i asked someone to show like some proof that it was more economical than political, im interested.

from waht i know the cia involvement in south america ddin't have to do with primarily economic reasons, i could be wrong tho.

cuba is as much a dictatorship as china or russia, and america trades with both of them

will forever be stunned how anyone could openly side with this kind of s***

moscow.sci-hub.do/2271/7c31e7132b36b7eb277e72acc566b116/eckstein1980.pdf

And you cant possibly be serious with that south american comment. You think that the CIA decimated half a continent because of shallow political reasons, and not because the U.S.-friendly governments in them were voted out in favor of democratic revolution that chose to focus on empowering its lower classes instead of helping the most powerful nations on earth accumulate more capital?

What exactly are the "political reasons" you speak of?

i know for sure one of the reasons is that they were scared of countries turning into communist countries kennedy said somethin like hje doesnt want brazil to turn into another china or cuba.

also another reason was they didn't want countries to be anti-democracy

also some other reasons, btw im not saying there aren'ty economic reasons i've said there are im just saying it was primarly political reasons

im gonna read that tomrorrow ty for the source

Communism is an economic theory.

The U.S. intervened after those countries democratically elected new leaders/governments, and then orchestrated the overthrowing of those new democracies by assassination, decimation, military invasion, and/or mercernary violence — in order to install their own figurehead into power who's friendly to the States.

So much for those supposed political motivations and preventing anti-democratic behaviors.

What else?

No problem

what? communism isn't just an economic theory.

i think the issue is that we are bein vague rn lmao america f***ed over MANY countries in south america, all for different reasons, some of em political some of em economical.

my entire point that i've been makin is that the embargos in cuba all started due to political reasons which is true it started when the conflict first started between fidel and batista.

do i think some politicians in america didn't want to expand the economic power of cuba? yes

but all of that started due to political reasons. (as far as i know)

also the embargos dont really hurt cuban foreign exchange (as far as i know). the reason it is hurting is because they have a really high trade deficit. (macroeconomics and s***) ( could be wrong)

I'm not being vague whatsoever.

You keep saying "they did this for political reasons" without ever defining what those reasons are, or what makes them political.

You keep using generic terms when talking about complex historical, international events. Then you proactively cover yourself by continually saying "afaik" and "i could be wrong", directly after asserting your ideas as credible and factual.

You just gave your explanation of "political reasons" — you said it was to fight Communism, which is an economic theory that advocates for an alternative to capitalism . To say that taking action against Communist nations (especially when those actions involve trade embargoes and commercial exile) is a "political motivation" is to know less about Communism than Jordan Peterson. At best its a forced conflation of specific economic developments as vague political squabbling.

I already listed several brief examples of how the embargoes certainly did affect Cuba's status in global trade, and the publication I linked goes into greater detail about that as well.

i provided an example where it was literally political motivation of them interfering with the government LMAO ?

communism is not just an economic theory so you were wrong there

i also listed examples before you just chose one comment out of context when i was discussin somethin wit someone else and ran wit it.

the reason im saying as far as i know and i could be wrong is becasue im fairy sure but not 100% , and it hought we were havin a discussion but you clearly angry for no reason lmao.

i never said it was just to fight communism tho i said thats a reason which it is !

you are being vague because south america is an entire continent ! do you know many countries the cia f***ed over ? over 10 ! and all for different reasons ! so when you say south america you are 100% being vague so suck my d*** you donkey.

Who tf stickied this

me
it's a big thread of a recent event

@Buchanan ... Don't forget this.

can you change the title?

Why not

Why

It's not accurate

How