[prolikewh0a]

Especially knowing the USA has been a thorn in Cuba's side since the 50's, repeatedly trying to kill Castro and undermine their economic system.

Americans live under constant propaganda from their own government, deployed by their own mainstream newspapers and TV media. Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' is an eye opening look into the continuous war/regime change drum that's beating inside the USA.

This is just more the same, NY Times writing anti-Cuban articles as propaganda, with no evidence to back up their nonsense claims.

[thefounder]

Cuba has been led by a dictatorship regime so I can see why US would like to change it. You don't need propaganda to see for yourself that Cuba has no free elections. So far US used sanctions instead of war and it seems it didn't work.

[danharaj]

The United States has supported dictatorships let alone allowed them to exist. Like Batista. In... Cuba.

[stephen_g]

The US has installed or supported more than a few dictators... Do you really think that American intervention has anything to do with democracy?

[thefounder]

I believe people want to promote/support their values and it's the same with the governments. U.S. always tried to install democracies (i.e after ww2, Afganistan) but I've never seen a dictatorship installing or promoting democracies.

[kart23]

Iran??

[wruza]

How a specific form of government somewhere outside of US is a problem for US? Why exactly would they like to change it?

[thefounder]

I believe that as the leader of the free world U.S has certain responsibilities that go beyond its borders. If it can do something good (i.e overthrow a dictator) and perhaps serves its interests as well(make new friends) I don't see why it shouldn't do that. It's a win-win. See South and North Korea situation to understand what difference it makes a successful intervention.

[wruza]

Which countries experienced something good from a succesful US intervention? Why does US criticize other win-win interventions?

[thefounder]

South Korea, West Germany are two examples. Compare that with North Korea and East Germany

[wruza]

Was that intervention or just results of WW2? Recent examples? Why doesn’t US free DPRK now that USSR gone and it is weaker than ever?

[atlantic]

> You don't need propaganda to see for yourself that Cuba has no free elections.

So far I'm with you. But so what? You seem to be implying that if a country's political system is non-democratic, then third parties are justified in intervening.

I would have thought that the whole concept of national sovereignty implied precisely the opposite: that each nation can decide for itself what system of political representation is best suited to its particular history and culture.

[thefounder]

The "nation" can't decide its political system if the government imprisons and kills the opposition. It's like saying that slavery should have been left legal until the slaves decide to change the law. All humans should have human rights.

[mcarmichael]

The US has used lots of approaches that didn't seem to work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

More restraint was exercised after Soviet support for the Castro government solidified, but regime change by unconventional means was not abandoned as a policy even then.

[JetSpiegel]

It was a dictatorship before, but the US was supportive then. Only some dictatorships are bad.

[PeterStuer]

Since you brought up 'free elections', I think this talk by Lawrence Lessig is relevant.

"I don't care who does the electing, as long as I get to do the nominating"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE

[Timmah]

> no free elections.

Neither do the US. Ask Bernie Sanders.

[notafraudster]

A free election doesn't mean people -- even powerful or rich people -- can't campaign against you. It doesn't mean political parties can't internally organize their candidate nomination procedures. And surely it doesn't mean that the candidate who got fewer votes (as Sanders did) is obligated to win.

Sanders entered the race polling at 2%, campaigned like hell, got close to winning, and had a material impact on the party's policy trajectory. And he did this despite taking deliberate steps throughout his career to make it harder for himself to take power within a political party -- for example, by not joining the party until he declared his intent to run for its leadership, by not doing much to work with anyone in the party on legislation or fundraising, and generally by keeping a low national profile before deciding to run.

Debbie Whatshername emailed saying she was in the tank for Clinton? Yes, duh. Party elders and professional leadership are permitted to have an opinion about who they want to win, If you show up at a club you've been trash-talking for years and expect to take it over, you can't reasonably be mad when the people who have been running it for years have their

The idea that the elections aren't free is also undermined by the scattershot way in which Sanders supporters defend institutional design choices. For example, Sanders performed better in states with caucuses than primaries. Caucuses are less democratic, because they induce low turnout because of the high barrier to participation. But Sanders' campaign and his supporters like caucuses. Sanders performed worse in states that did not allow independents to participate in the Democratic party. But Sanders' campaign and his supporters view this rule as an offensive affront to democracy. The common element is not the institutional design ex ante, it's the ex post impact of that design on Sanders' chances.

None of the arguments Sanders made about getting a bum rap are evidence of institutional dysfunction. There is no country on earth that has institutions that don't have these characteristics. Many very healthy democracies have internal party leadership conventions that look much like U.S. nominations pre-1968 (only party elders vote, byzantine favor trading to get the nomination) let alone what they look like today, which are much more open and democratic. America has made more progress reforming its primary elections and generally elicits broader participation in them than almost any country.

But set aside all this and it's is not even a good case study. If your position is that the system is rigged so that outsider candidates don't win, how do you explain Clinton losing to game theory in the early stages of 2008? How do you explain Trump winning in 2016? Primaries result in outsider candidates winning. This has been one of the main challenges for political scientists, who want to seriously study institutional design. Before 2016, the canonical text on primaries was "The Party Decides" -- that party elites, through endorsement, cross-fundraising, ballot access, and the "invisible primary" decide the outcome of elections. No one is reading "The Party Decides" in 2018 because, well, you see the hell we live in.

Disclaimer: I live in America but can't vote here, and I would have voted for Sanders, not Clinton, in the primary. It's not because I'm a neoliberal shill, it's because your post reminded me of a first-year student I taught once who argued that the U.S. isn't a democracy because "Monsanto, maaaaan".

[paradite]

> Cuba has been led by a dictatorship regime so I can see why US would like to change it.

US has a gun control problem so I can see why the rest of the world would like to change it.

Edit: Just to clarify, it is just an analogy to say that I disapprove of countries interfering domestic issues. I don't intend to go into flamewars on either issues.