That being said, I'm not surprised that the Castro brothers support this thorn in the side of The West. Cuba welcomed nuclear weapons from the Soviets with open arms, why not a terrorist group or two?
Castro not only welcomed them with open arms, he told Kruschev Cuba should be sacrificed in a nuclear exchange in order to attack the US imperialists, scaring him.
Hence Kruschev withdrawing the missiles without a word in advance to Castro, who learned of it in the press IIRC, infuriatinghim with Kruschev, who patched things up by inviting Castro to a month tour with him of the USSR. That with the 'non-intervention' pledge seemed to help.
But Castro did say later, that he'd been wrong and Kruschev had been right (don't hear that a lot from leaders on such issues. Take US Presidents and Vietnam).
I think you're right, that what it's largely about is simply supporting other opponents to the dominant world powers; that's what helps limit some levels of oppression.
The history of the US in Latin America gives them good reason for concern and a desire to have opponents with some power.
In the middle east, Iran and Hezbollah somewhat serve as a counter to the US and Israel, for better or worse.
If allowed, that would be chipped away until Hezbollah was replaced by a force who does what the west wants more (perhaps like the Sauds), Iran could have another Shah, we could have back leaders like Mubarak - even 'bad' forces can have some benefit to those who prefer not to have totally dominant, likely corrupt, possibly brutal, global powers dominating the regions. So there's sometimes mutual support between these relatively small groups who are more independent.
The funny thing is, the more just our policies, the less need for opposition; but less opposition seems to lead to 'power corrupts'.
This is more why some have more tolerance for opposition groups, to preserve some diversity of power, not total domination - not to support their wrongdoing.
But, we do business with countries worse than Cuba and leaders worse than the Castro brothers. This embargo is silly and outdated, as are the travel restrictions.
I agree, and have called the White House to say so. When I thought we might have a Democrat there in Obama.
Oh yes, and in before "zomg, Western Imperialism caused all of this." Yes, I know we tried to kill Castro and undo his revolution. I'd be pissed too, but he's no saint and slaughtered and suppressed countless people for power.
That's true. It's just complicated, when you talk try to separate the difficulty for a small poor country to remain free of returning to domination by the world's biggest power - all the infiltration and schemes - in fact, the US had one of Castro's most trusted leaders as an asset - versus the abuses and wrongs.
Castro has been both a terrible wrongdoer, and a leader who has done a lot of good as well such as his promotion of doctors throughout Latin and South America.
Wouldn't it just be easier if these leaders who don't say they're loyal servants of the US before their own countries were replaced by US puppets?
Unfortunately, that's how many seem to view it and they have a lot of guns.
I prefer when independence is respected, when there's more fairness, while opposing actual extremism such as terrorism - but some business and political leaders can't seem to tell the difference between not bending over to give 90% to US corporations, and being Al Queda, responding to both with the same desire to assassinate, invade, whatever. That's 'greed gone bad' and the source of a lot of our own bad policies we had for decades.
When we'd go in doing things like having Allende removed by force from power to put in a dictator, we were war criminals, acting against humanity and our own national values.
