> Also set up one party states which ideologically align with every US enemy out there including USSR/Russia while completely ruining their own countries.
It is unclear if you're referring to Cuba or to Venezuela or both. What exactly does "ideologically aligning" mean? Also does actions taken by a global superpower's military on behalf of elites in that superpower (I'm referencing the article here, "Invade Haiti, Wall Street urged, the US obliged") to steal, confiscate, block trade count towards "ruining their own countries"? My guess is that you're kind of trying to imply they caused their own ruin and deserved it by not being "ideologically aligned" with the US (does that mean Wall Street?), is that inaccurate?
Castro was aligned with USSR from day 1 and kept this alignment long after the Cold War. The consequent economic policies had the expected effect on Cuba. Chavez was also always aligned with the anti-Western bloc, and his policies led to 1 in 6 Venezuelans being a refugees. Both are unrelated to Haiti and as far as I know never cared much for it.
Think about the core idea that you’re defending: that nations do not have freedom of association if the choose to be friendly with regimes the United States doesn’t like, and it’s fine for the US to use it’s cultural and economic hegemonic power to crush those states for making the wrong friends or choosing the wrong ideology. Does that not strike you as an immoral thing for the US to do?
>it’s fine for the US to use it’s cultural and economic hegemonic power to crush those states for making the wrong friends or choosing the wrong ideology
There's making different choices and there's 'being friendly to the Soviets which were also very much into overthrowing the US' or 'Driving double digit percentage of your own population out to the point you're a foreign policy problem' or 'undermining neighbouring states due to your 'wrong' ideology'.
In the abstract, that sounds kind of right, but concretely, how about when that ideology is being actual Nazis? As in WWII and the Axis powers? Is the US wrong for lumping Italy along with Germany?
No policy is going to be correct all the time, just as no policy is going to be incorrect all the time. Choosing to apply economic and military pressure against Italy was the right thing to do in that specific set of circumstances. Just because it was the right thing to do in that circumstance doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do in every other circumstance. I would posit that broadly, this kind of guilty-by-association economic harm is the wrong choice more often than not.
I'm not sure this is true. I recall from listening to the Blowback podcast that Castro initially tried to align with the US, and there was disagreement among US leaders about whether he was friend or foe. But we had a bunch of people in Florida, among them the dictator he ousted, offering to try and kill him, so we just went with that.
Cuba policy may have made sense in the 60s and even 70s but 80s and onward it makes zero sense, just like our Venezuela policy makes zero sense. Follow the money and you'll find out that it's just corps blocking it.
It is unclear if you're referring to Cuba or to Venezuela or both. What exactly does "ideologically aligning" mean? Also does actions taken by a global superpower's military on behalf of elites in that superpower (I'm referencing the article here, "Invade Haiti, Wall Street urged, the US obliged") to steal, confiscate, block trade count towards "ruining their own countries"? My guess is that you're kind of trying to imply they caused their own ruin and deserved it by not being "ideologically aligned" with the US (does that mean Wall Street?), is that inaccurate?