> but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo.
Seems to be a direct consequence of Fidel Castro's political initiatives. I'm sure we can agree that Castro's regime has at least some responsibilities in this outcome.
> You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.
That assumption is rather disingenuous. There's a clear before/after period in Cuba. I'm sure you agree that Fidel Castro is the direct responsible for this revolution. If he is responsible for this change, what exactly leads you to believe that he holds no responsibility in any negative consequence that arose naturally from his direct political actions and planning?
Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising". They are quite obviously very different consequences compared to pollution or traffic jams following heavy car subsidies.
> Well, it's weird to call the foreign policy decisions of bordering nations "naturally arising".
So, you believe that the Cuban missile crisis was yet another misunderstanding that Fidel Castro had absolutely no say in the subject, do you?
What an unfortunate saint, Fidel Castro has been. Those countless political asylum-seekers risking their lives in makeshift boats must be a whole bunch of ungrateful fools for not enjoying living in Castro's paradise on earth.
No, that is obviously a mischaracterization of my statement. Not only is the missile crisis a quite separate event than the imposition of sanctions, I was not discussing the agency of Castro but your assertion that the US had no agency over its foreign policy towards Cuba once Castro had power.
Seems to be a direct consequence of Fidel Castro's political initiatives. I'm sure we can agree that Castro's regime has at least some responsibilities in this outcome.
> You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.
That assumption is rather disingenuous. There's a clear before/after period in Cuba. I'm sure you agree that Fidel Castro is the direct responsible for this revolution. If he is responsible for this change, what exactly leads you to believe that he holds no responsibility in any negative consequence that arose naturally from his direct political actions and planning?