Cuban Protests - Patria y Vida — homeland and life

[Heathen Hammer]

The Democratic establishment and the Biden administration is backing or supporting the Cuban regime? There might be "sympathy" among left leaning people towards Cuba but I doubt there is an establishment-level support for Cuba at an elite level?
Where is this idea coming from?

The far right issue isn't support for human rights or democracy...it is that somehow, radicalized folk are, as has been the case historically, only playing a blame game for further polarization with inflammatory rhetoric. I have not seen the democrat party back the Cuba stance nor support it. At worst, Obama tried a very specific "lets talk" approach to EVERY country the USA has viewed with hostility. That is about it. Obama's strategy did not work, but any sane person knows that Obama's strategy wasnt to unleash a jewish plot to create a communist muslim pedophile land, which seems to be the common conspiracy among average Republican follower. Other than that, there is not reason to say that DEMOCRATS=CUBA!!11!!! they bring commism to America ehmegeeeerd. This is totally irrational and toxic towards a democracy that needs common ground for exchange of ideas.

As it was pointed out above, its not as much about Democrats liking Castro, but more about Democrats hating Cuban-Americans, since that demographic will never vote for them.
Same reason why EU liberals hate Poles, Hungarians and other people from former Eastern Block - they know that people that lived under totalitarian systems will reject their ideology and have stronger immunity against blatant propaganda, then pampered Western Europeans who never experienced such thing.

[EmperorBatman999]

Please don't say US if US troops invaded Cuba they'd be welcomed as liberators.

The US is not offering Cuba democracy and human rights, its imposing a pretty savage economic punishment. The displaced faction was a pornocracy, and there's not reason (looking at other US efforts at Democracy and human rights like Iraq and Afghanistan) for Cubans to change their government. The US has to improve the offer. Even if they did, on recent showing, who in their right mind would believe them?

Again, I never proposed a ground invasion. That would simply destroy the pro-democratic good will the Cubans might have. Invasion would only be justifiable if something really extreme happened, such as if the Cuban government used chemical weapons on the protesters, or if either a pro- or anti-government group tried to storm Guantanamo Bay. Both are unlikely to happen. Likewise, I never advocated bringing back Battista: this new regime will have to be governed by the islanders, not the exiles. The US will have to offer support from relatively afar, as we've done with other pro-democracy demonstrations. America didn't invade Tunisia in 2010, and the US didn't invade across the Iron Curtain when Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany decided to overthrow their communist dictators.

So, because people are cynical about the United States and its role in the world, nobody can get their democratic rights anyway? Are we really going to tell the people of the world living under dictatorship that it is too late to become a democracy and too late to secure their natural rights to life and property, and that they will need to live under the terror of dictatorship and poverty for the rest of humankind's existence, all because "America is bad"?

I question how terrible and "savage" America's "economic punishment" would be. Would it be any worse than the world of deprivation, poverty, and shortage which the Cuban people have lived under thanks to the communist command economy?

[Heathen Hammer]

So, because people are cynical about the United States and its role in the world, nobody can get their democratic rights anyway? Are we really going to tell the people of the world living under dictatorship that it is too late to become a democracy and too late to secure their natural rights to life and property, and that they will need to live under the terror of dictatorship and poverty for the rest of humankind's existence, all because "America is bad"?

Because the days of Marshall Plan are long gone. Becoming an American client state ensures neither freedom nor higher living standards, they'd end up stuck with another dictatorship which would do the same thing, but this time with rainbow flags and McDonalds signs and crippling exploitation by American megacorporations.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Because the days of Marshall Plan are long gone. Becoming an American client state ensures neither freedom nor higher living standards, they'd end up stuck with another dictatorship which would do the same thing, but this time with rainbow flags and McDonalds signs and crippling exploitation by American megacorporations.

Ok, then there’s no reason to ease restrictions to allow American businesses to participate in the Cuban economy, nor try to help undermine the communist regime. Wouldn’t want the decadent whores of American capitalism to bespoil the maidenhood of a free and independent Cuba. Also, luv that auth right and auth left are on the same page here, as is more common than either would like to admit.

[EmperorBatman999]

Because the days of Marshall Plan are long gone. Becoming an American client state ensures neither freedom nor higher living standards, they'd end up stuck with another dictatorship which would do the same thing, but this time with rainbow flags and McDonalds signs and crippling exploitation by American megacorporations.

This is a fanciful nostalgia that doesn't bear with the facts of reality. The Marshall Plan always had strings attached and was driven by American corporate interests.

For example, here is the story of Coca-Cola in France; this is on Jstor if any students here have access: https://www.jstor.org/stable/286280. I actually had Dr. Kuisel as a professor and learned this from his class.

During World War II, American troops introduced Coca-Cola to Europe, where it soon found a market among the Europeans wherever the Americans marched. However, very quickly after the war, its popularity began to concern French winemakers, who believed that American soda pop was going to replace wine as the national drink of France. So the French winemaker guilds and the Communist Party of France began to push to have Coca-Cola banned from France, while groups of angry winemakers began vandalizing stores and warehouses which were selling the soda. The French government thus began to move to ban the drink, which alarmed Coke's executives in the United States. Coca-Cola began lobbying the American government, which then resulted in U.S. diplomats basically telling the French government, "No Coke, no Marshall Plan." The French government, seeing the obvious benefits of the Marshall Plan, chose to keep Coca-Cola in France.

Yet, the fears of an American corporate takeover of France's beverage culture were completely unfounded. Wine continues to be the national drink of France, and it remains one of France's most influential export products.

American foreign policy and foreign aid have always been tied to corporate interest, but that doesn't mean it's bad aid and bad policy.

[irontaino]

This is a fanciful nostalgia that doesn't bear with the facts of reality. The Marshall Plan always had strings attached and was driven by American corporate interests.

For example, here is the story of Coca-Cola in France; this is on Jstor if any students here have access: https://www.jstor.org/stable/286280. I actually had Dr. Kuisel as a professor and learned this from his class.

During World War II, American troops introduced Coca-Cola to Europe, where it soon found a market among the Europeans wherever the Americans marched. However, very quickly after the war, its popularity began to concern French winemakers, who believed that American soda pop was going to replace wine as the national drink of France. So the French winemaker guilds and the Communist Party of France began to push to have Coca-Cola banned from France, while groups of angry winemakers began vandalizing stores and warehouses which were selling the soda. The French government thus began to move to ban the drink, which alarmed Coke's executives in the United States. Coca-Cola began lobbying the American government, which then resulted in U.S. diplomats basically telling the French government, "No Coke, no Marshall Plan." The French government, seeing the obvious benefits of the Marshall Plan, chose to keep Coca-Cola in France.

Yet, the fears of an American corporate takeover of France's beverage culture were completely unfounded. Wine continues to be the national drink of France, and it remains one of France's most influential export products.

American foreign policy and foreign aid have always been tied to corporate interest, but that doesn't mean it's bad aid and bad policy.

America was never gonna overthrow or instigate a coup in France. However, between invading and instigating coups against countries that don't kowtow to corporate interests, training and supporting right-wing death squads, and support for dictators butchering their own people, American foreign/corporate policy in the third world is almost always bad.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thursday’s sanctions are “just the beginning -- the United States will continue to sanction individuals responsible for oppression of the Cuban people,” he said.

The U.S. is also attempting to provide internet access to Cubans after the government in Havana shut it off, weighing how to enable remittances from Cubans in the U.S. to relatives back home and plans to restaff the American embassy, Biden said.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...fter-crackdown

Wtf did Joe just do a based?

[Cyclops]

Again, I never proposed a ground invasion. That would simply destroy the pro-democratic good will the Cubans might have. Invasion would only be justifiable if something really extreme happened, such as if the Cuban government used chemical weapons on the protesters, or if either a pro- or anti-government group tried to storm Guantanamo Bay. Both are unlikely to happen.

Sorry I wasn't implying you were, I was referencing the unrealistic lies told by Rumsfeld about Iraq. They are relevant because the US does not grant democracy as a favour, nor should it.

I don't think the US requires some extreme act to get involved in toppling South and Central American regimes, they usually do it when US company interests (usually oil or fruit) are infringed and that threshold was passed decades ago in Cuba.

I'm not saying tis right or wrong, but we have to expect a large power will protect its interests in its own backyard. I think its pretty normal for the US to have a huge say in Mexico and points south. As a loyal ally I'd like it to be less savage than it often is. Makes it easier to eat the sandwich of reality if the bread is nice.

Likewise, I never advocated bringing back Battista: this new regime will have to be governed by the islanders, not the exiles. The US will have to offer support from relatively afar, as we've done with other pro-democracy demonstrations. America didn't invade Tunisia in 2010, and the US didn't invade across the Iron Curtain when Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany decided to overthrow their communist dictators.

Sorry to state the obvious, but Batista is definitely still relevant. The reason the US has imposed sanctions is because Castro nationalised some US land holdings. US companies came to dominate the Cuban economy especially under the Batista regime (but also under previous regimes). The reason Batista is still relevant is because the US is running sanction to punish Cuba for upsetting that arrangement. Subsequently the excuses have changed, some nonsense about democracy or something, but its clearly nonsense. Cuba is being punished for not continuing the Batista style relationship.

The US has less reach into Europe , and there are plenty of alternate allies there so of course their offer has more sugar on it. However its clear from Ukraine, Poland, and Hungary's examples that the US isn't inflexibly committed to 100% democracy in all states, nor should they be. They want stable regimes they can rely on and profit from (and hopefully with).

So, because people are cynical about the United States and its role in the world, nobody can get their democratic rights anyway? Are we really going to tell the people of the world living under dictatorship that it is too late to become a democracy and too late to secure their natural rights to life and property, and that they will need to live under the terror of dictatorship and poverty for the rest of humankind's existence, all because "America is bad"?

No the US offer is so dismal the Cubans accept a rotten communist dictatorship in preference. Improve the offer.

"America" is not "bad". The US is the Superpower, and has always acted in a high handed way in the Western Hemisphere. As I say this is to be expected, and no one doubts the US earned its position as Superpower with strength and some skill. As Powers go they are definitely not the worst: the UK has some fair crimes against humanity in the books and I don't think they were the worst either.

I question how terrible and "savage" America's "economic punishment" would be.

"Would be"? The US sanctions medicine and food right now: cf the Saudi massacres (is it a genocide? certainly religiously motivated destruction of entire cultural groups) in Yemen continues almost uniterrupted (except by Saudi incompetence). Promises of democratisation can't be taken seriously given they just handed Afghanistan back to the Taliban, and numerous dictators in Latin America have enjoyed US support.

Would it be any worse than the world of deprivation, poverty, and shortage which the Cuban people have lived under thanks to the communist command economy?

Apparently most Cubans think so. I have to say the US has done a lot to excuse the wretched Communist regime by playing the comic book villain ("poisoned cigars! devilishly delightful Seymour!"). If the US sent free medicine that worked instead of clumsy booby traps they might show up the Dictators as incompetent but instead they give ready made excuses.

Improve the offer.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Apparently most Cubans think so. I have to say the US has done a lot to excuse the wretched Communist regime by playing the comic book villain ("poisoned cigars! devilishly delightful Seymour!"). If the US sent free medicine that worked instead of clumsy booby traps they might show up the Dictators as incompetent but instead they give ready made excuses.

Improve the offer.

It’s pretty hilarious to suggest a clear majority of the Cuban people support the dictatorship given the government shut off the internet so people can’t see the jackbooted crackdown and mass arrests. No, the Batista regime from 70 years ago is not relevant, or the US wouldn’t have a rationale for levying more sanctions as we speak on the regime, not less, and under a lib left administration. Tankies gonna tank I guess.

The usual cope that places all the blame on the US for causing Cuba’s problems with capitalism, as well as the blame for not toppling the regime with some magic concoction of capitalist wealth infusion, is perennially bizarre. It’s a type of lunacy only afforded to comparatively wealthy western observers who consider self loathing and incoherent contradictions a mark of intellectual prowess. The USG is under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to entertain these fantasies, nor should it. The sanctions on Cuba remain in place, and the regime keeps giving cause to add more. The regime is unlikely to die for the foreseeable future. If it ever does, you can bet there will always be hordes of leftist contrarians in the US and Europe ready to blame anything bad on the US, while rending their garments about how the Cubans were curing cancer, solving racism and world poverty before the evil capitalists reconquered the land. It’s a sickness that is more likely to doom us in the long term than is any authoritarian enemy across the sea.

[Heathen Hammer]

This is a fanciful nostalgia that doesn't bear with the facts of reality. The Marshall Plan always had strings attached and was driven by American corporate interests.

For example, here is the story of Coca-Cola in France; this is on Jstor if any students here have access: https://www.jstor.org/stable/286280. I actually had Dr. Kuisel as a professor and learned this from his class.

During World War II, American troops introduced Coca-Cola to Europe, where it soon found a market among the Europeans wherever the Americans marched. However, very quickly after the war, its popularity began to concern French winemakers, who believed that American soda pop was going to replace wine as the national drink of France. So the French winemaker guilds and the Communist Party of France began to push to have Coca-Cola banned from France, while groups of angry winemakers began vandalizing stores and warehouses which were selling the soda. The French government thus began to move to ban the drink, which alarmed Coke's executives in the United States. Coca-Cola began lobbying the American government, which then resulted in U.S. diplomats basically telling the French government, "No Coke, no Marshall Plan." The French government, seeing the obvious benefits of the Marshall Plan, chose to keep Coca-Cola in France.

Yet, the fears of an American corporate takeover of France's beverage culture were completely unfounded. Wine continues to be the national drink of France, and it remains one of France's most influential export products.

American foreign policy and foreign aid have always been tied to corporate interest, but that doesn't mean it's bad aid and bad policy.

I think you missed my point.
US only did MP in 40s, because doing otherwise meant potential defection of its client states to the Soviet side of the Cold War.
After Cold War was gone, no such motivation exists.
Any nation that comes under control of US today is plundered and put under control of oppressive regimes that aren't at all better then any of the "rogue states" American "free press" tells us to be afraid of.

[Vanoi]

Pretty sure that has to do with the support of other foreign powers who want the Socialist farce in Venezuela to continue for their own strategic goals.

Like who? Cuba was a big supporter but their economy went to so that's stopped. Iran has attempted to help Venezuela but it's been small. Russia is it's biggest supporter and it's definitely not Russia propping up Venezuela.

I'll remind you the government has the support of the military. That really helps prevent any kind of regime change.

The way NATO powers intervened in Syria didn't help either.

NATO missed it's chance in 2013.

[Gaius Baltar]

It has been realtively quiet, at least in the media for awhile, but it appears a large scale protest is planned for November 15th. It will be interesting as the organizers insist they will rally and the Cuban government of course insists they will not.

Tensions rise in Cuba: Activists vow to march, government says it won't happen
“I can assure you the coordinators...have complete conviction to protest on Monday," said one of the planned march's organizers."

[Ludicus]

After a nice chat with Castro's ghost, I can confirm Chinese troops are in Cuba.

Invasion would only be justifiable if something really extreme happened, such as if the Cuban government used chemical weapons on the protesters

Makes sense, Saddam's WMD are hidden in Cuba.

or anti-government group tried to storm Guantanamo Bay

Well, Guantanamo Bay is a colonial US relic, isn’t it? and it's not cheap, the cost of running Guantanamo Bay is 13 million dollars per prisoner. The Cost of Running Guantánamo Bay: $13 Million Per Prisoner NYTimes

I question how terrible and "savage" America's "economic punishment" would be. Would it be any worse than the world of deprivation, poverty, and shortage which the Cuban people have lived under thanks to the communist command economy?

To put it in a word, it's been horrible. List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated With Cuba Effective January 8, 2021
The blockade remains largely in place 60 years after the revolution, severely restricting the flow of goods to the island. The “communist” UN have estimated that the embargo has cost the Cuban economy $130 billion over six decades. Obama relaxed sanctions (in 2014, he said, “I believe this contact will ultimately do more to empower the Cuban people”). A smart move...




...but Trump reversed Obama’s strategy. Trump placed Cuba back on the US list of state sponsors of international terrorism (!!) and most US companies are forbidden from dealing with Cuba, and various US laws punish foreign companies that do business in Cuba. And, as we already know,the ”the communist” UN General Assembly calls for US to end Cuba embargo

Oxfam Report – May 2021. Right to Live Without a Blockade - Right to Live without a Blockade reveals the impact of nearly six decades of sanctions imposed by successive US governments on the Cuban population. Oxfam calls for the normalization of US-Cuba relations.
-----
And let’s not exaggerate. In the study, made by Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index, Healthiest Countries 2021 - World Population Review
Cuba healthGrade = 74.66
US healthGrade=73,02
According to Bloomberg, the study,

excluding exceptions such as Cuba, demonstrates the highly developed nations’ leadership in terms of health indicators and their correlation with socioeconomic conditions.

[irontaino]

Ironically, the blockade that was supposed to cripple the communist government only further entrenched it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Fun fact: Cuba isn’t under blockade and has not been since the Cuban Missile crisis. Multiple foreign countries trade with Cuba, especially China and Spain. The Cuban regime arbitrarily restricts imports, including food and medicine, for its own political purposes, and blames the US for its problems. As usual, auth left shills simultaneously accuse the US of trying to colonize Cuba with American capitalism, held at bay by St. Castro, while also oppressing poor Cuba by depriving it of American capitalism.

[Ludicus]

Cuba isn’t under blockade

A shameless lie.Period.Blockade or embargo? does it really matter? its fair to say that the U.S. action is a blockade,because in fact it is an illegitimate use of power to try to make the Cuban state march to a different tune.




---
---
Here's why Obama honored Cuban hero José Martí in Havana Washington Post

What would Martí have thought of Obama’s argument for normalizing relations between the United States and Cuba?

In the landmark address on U.S.-Cuban relations delivered in Havana on Tuesday, Obama seemed to have learned from Martí. He acknowledged that during the Spanish-American War, American battleships had crossed the Florida Straits not only “to liberate, but also to exert control over Cuba.”

Gifted with superior intelligence, Obama chose his words carefully, to please Americans and Cubans. I would say the same thing, if I were in his place. Diplomatically, Obama “forgot” to explain the reason behind Martí’s dead. José Martí - Library of Congress

He insisted that the next war should be short (to avoid U.S. intervention) and fought with a "republican method and spirit" (to forestall the possibility of a military dictatorship.) In 1892 he founded the Cuban Revolutionary Party to organize the coming struggle. By early 1895, his preparations were complete. He would set sail with the generals from the last struggle and considerable supplies from Fernandina Beach, Florida...Then, U.S. authorities seized the ships just as they were about to set sail...He was killed in a small skirmish not even two weeks after he had arrived.

Not only that. The armed intervention of the US in 1898, followed by military occupation and the subsequent imposition of the Platt Amendment, thwarted Cuban aspirations for self-determination and sovereignity. And of course,Guantanamo is a colonial relic of the Platt Amendment.

Senate Debate on the Platt Amendment - Teaching American History.
February 27, 1901 -by J.T. Morgan - Source: Congressional Record, 57 Cong., I Sess., pp. 3146-3148

Mr. President...The Senate of the United States and the Congress of the United States are now preparing to declare, by public law, that these people shall accept what we here spread before them.

…[I]t is an ultimatum sent by the Congress of the United States to the people of Cuba, not to any government there. You have got no government in Cuba except the government of the United States when you pass this act. It is an ultimatum, then, to the people of Cuba. Have they authorized their representatives in that convention to adopt something like this?... we put it in the form of an ultimatum. “You have got to do it because we say so.

Mr. President, the fault and the shame of this proposition are both disclosed on the face of the papers, and it is unnecessary to go outside of the four corners of this proposition for any man of ordinary common sense to discover it. There it is.

You leave those words in there, and you compel Cuba at once to subordinate herself at all times to the visitation of the United States, to ascertain how she is dealing with her own people, not ours; whether she is protecting life, and personal liberty, and property there according to our ideas of what she ought to do.

Can any man imagine a more absurd position that the Congress of the United States could possibly place itself in than that which is on these papers? I would be ashamed…

…[W]hen they want to go down there to rectify the Cubans we will keep a sort of Sunday school down there with an army, at any time and every time that they do not do exactly what we want them to do. The Senator from South Carolina asked me when it would end.I will tell him never, in my opinion.

It is continuous, giving us a right to interfere with their method of conducting their own government in respect to their own people, and then trying to house that or shelter it under the idea of the Monroe doctrine.

Whoever heard of such an application as that made of the Monroe doctrine before, that it gives us the right not only to fence off outside the United States and prevent them from coming in and establishing institutions that might be dangerous to the liberties of the United States, sooner or later, but also the right to enter into these different governments, to visit them, look into their affairs, to determine whether or not their governments are adequate to the protection of the life, personal liberty, and property of their own people?…

Now, Mr. President, I am perfectly persuaded in my own mind that if we put this legislative ultimatum at those people in Cuba it will not be two months, perhaps it will be less time than that, when the roll of the drum will be heard in our country summoning the volunteers to go to Cuba to put down an insurrection.
I believe it is the best invitation for strife and war that has ever been put into a paper to be tendered to another government.

Now, under the title. “Chapter XXVI -Congress Adopts But Public Opinion Rejects”,( book- The Spanish-Cuban War and the Birth of American Imperialism, volume II: 1898-1902)

[QUOTE] ...on the following day, the attack continued. Senator James K.Jones, an Arkansas democrat, and Joseph B .Foraker of Ohio, long an opponent of the Administration´s Cuba policy, tried to

modify the terms of Article three, which granted the United States the right of intervention.
Both men introduced motions to delete “the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty” as a ground for intervention (*) hoping thereby to limit intervention.

Foraker, like Morgan, voiced a prophecy which was to become more meaningful as time passed.He prophesied that the intervention article would create more chaos in Cuba that it would prevent, for it would tempt the losing party in each election to raise such a furor as to necessitate American intervention and thus undo the result of the election...

The attack on the Amendment concluded with speeches by a half dozen Senators. They charged the Administration with hypocrisy for violating the Teller Amendment, and Senator Benjamin Tillman of South Carolina said the provision on the Isle of Pines “is the most apparent illustration of Anglo-Saxon greed for land ever presented in a legislative body”.

(*) Where are they when America needs them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

A shameless lie.Period.Blockade or embargo? does it really matter? its fair to say that the U.S. action is a blockade,because in fact it is an illegitimate use of power to try to make the Cuban state march to a different tune.

You’re deliberately spreading misinformation that has been debunked by public sources when it featured in a Facebook post. It is indeed shameless that you admit you lied, then double down to insist it doesn’t matter. Your accusation that the US is using illegitimate means to exert control over Cuba through the embargo is meaningless given you’ve made the exact same empty assertions regarding how America tried to “control” Cuba with capitalism and trade before Castro saved it from being a US tourist trap and trading partner. The fact that the US leases Gitmo from the Cuban government does not remotely support your “blockade” claim, nor does the rest of the usual “America bad” copium. On the contrary, the idea that the US is paying money to and exporting millions of dollars of food and medicine annually to a country it is “blockading” highlights the absurdity of your false claim.

[EmperorBatman999]

Ah, you dug up my post from several months ago to quip on it today, alright.

After a nice chat with Castro's ghost, I can confirm Chinese troops are in Cuba.


Makes sense, Saddam's WMD are hidden in Cuba.

Does your sarcasm imply that the Cuban people should just be made to suffer from an authoritarian government? That they are exempt from human rights, as chartered by the UN, the same UN whose demands to end the embargo you had cited?

Well, Guantanamo Bay is a colonial US relic, isn’t it? and it's not cheap, the cost of running Guantanamo Bay is 13 million dollars per prisoner. The Cost of Running Guantánamo Bay: $13 Million Per Prisoner NYTimes

Having US troops pull out of Guantanamo isn't pertinent to the discussion, that is another issue entirely. So are the practices happening there, as immoral as they are. The United States had acquired the island under a previous government it recognized, and still pays to lease the area to the Cuban government, which Havana tends not to cash in.

To put it in a word, it's been horrible. List of Restricted Entities and Subentities Associated With Cuba Effective January 8, 2021
The blockade remains largely in place 60 years after the revolution, severely restricting the flow of goods to the island. The “communist” UN have estimated that the embargo has cost the Cuban economy $130 billion over six decades. Obama relaxed sanctions (in 2014, he said, “I believe this contact will ultimately do more to empower the Cuban people”). A smart move...

...but Trump reversed Obama’s strategy. Trump placed Cuba back on the US list of state sponsors of international terrorism (!!) and most US companies are forbidden from dealing with Cuba, and various US laws punish foreign companies that do business in Cuba. And, as we already know,the ”the communist” UN General Assembly calls for US to end Cuba embargo

Oxfam Report – May 2021. Right to Live Without a Blockade - Right to Live without a Blockade reveals the impact of nearly six decades of sanctions imposed by successive US governments on the Cuban population. Oxfam calls for the normalization of US-Cuba relations.
-----
And let’s not exaggerate. In the study, made by Bloomberg Healthiest Country Index, Healthiest Countries 2021 - World Population Review
Cuba healthGrade = 74.66
US healthGrade=73,02
According to Bloomberg, the study,

The US does not closely enforce the embargo, as others have discussed, and thus non-American companies can and do trade with Cuba. The defects in the Cuban economy are inherent to its political system, the monopoly of State Socialism. Other historically socialist states which the US has not embargoed also reflect similar phenomena associated with supply shortages, mass-poverty, and general levels of decay and underdevelopment. This was exactly the case with the Soviet Union, and the United States did actually trade with the Soviets, supplying a great deal of the country's grain supply. This grain supply is really all what prevented the Soviet Union from collapsing into starvation at certain points because of how unproductive collectivized agriculture was.

[Infidel144]

Does your sarcasm imply that the Cuban people should just be made to suffer from an authoritarian government? That they are exempt from human rights, as chartered by the UN, the same UN whose demands to end the embargo you had cited?

To totalitarian collectivists there is no such thing as people suffering under the merciful governments of communazis. The compassionate communazi State provides every right necessary to the people that live there.

[Cyclops]

...
The US does not closely enforce the embargo, as others have discussed, and thus non-American companies can and do trade with Cuba. The defects in the Cuban economy are inherent to its political system, the monopoly of State Socialism. Other historically socialist states which the US has not embargoed also reflect similar phenomena associated with supply shortages, mass-poverty, and general levels of decay and underdevelopment..

There's a theme though: the USSR (isolated and embargoed by most of the rest of Europe for decades, then decades of Cold War), Venezuala (still embargoed), China (2 decades of US embargoes before Nixon recognised them), North Korea...most Socialist states have been a rotten mess, but Imperialist powers like the UK and France, and later the US have definitely made a project of wrecking their ****. Quite often they are coming off the back of failed states with poor food security.

There are plenty of Socialist countries that never starved. Israel before the US made them become capitalist, East Germany, Australia (the 2A and anti-vaxx crowd tell me I'm living in the Soviet Union, must be true). Its a funny meme though.

Cuba is a food exporter (when the US allows it) and wasn't a complete hellhole for most of the period of US rule. I think the gangsters got in and the Cubans got sick of it. Commos exploited the dissatisfaction, but their ideological commitment to stealing farms annoyed the Mafia and some US multinationals, so they ordered their government to do something. A lot of the something has been trying to starve the Cubans.

I don't think Washington is torturing Cubans for the Mafia, its much more likely wealthy families controlling agribusinesses that used to dominate the island want their piece of the pie back. Like the Oil businesses with their dedicated hatred of Iran, these wealthy US businesses have long memories and no appetite for forgiveness.