>> I know you know the onus is on those who claim the embargo trashed the economy.

Citations were provided- even a declassified State Department memo laying out the strategy- but that was ignored in favor of slogans. Al and Luis quoted evidence from their local experience: also apparently ignored. Meanwhile even a cursory online search shows huge evidence of embargo's effect on civilians. If you insist on the opposite then in rational argument, counter-evidence is overdue.

>>either other nations help them or they hurt them. Candidly, this is an age-old tactic of the political left - infantilizing socialist/communist nations.

Nice, but the US State Department admitted its intention. Not satisfied with that, they passed legislation trying to extend authority extra-territorially to make sure of it. Al provided evidence from Canada where this was so alarming that it was made illegal to cooperate with the US provision. Luis has described why most South American nations were cowed into shunning Cuba. In response? Jargon and sound bites. "Infantilizing socialist/communist nations?" Puh-leez.

>>As I said yesterday, they lost one "economic sugar-daddy" in Venezuela, which is why they were open to talking to the Obama administration. At some point. Cuba needed to show responsibility as a nation.

As I quoted yesterday, Castro made overtures to the US after the revolution but was rebuffed by the Eisenhower administration that made plans to try to depose him. The huge game of chicken that followed was of benefit to nobody except the Soviets. IOW the embargo was a total misfire that's still not resolved half a century later.

>>Communism in Cuba imposed (for decades) this sophomoric idea of egalitarianism on the masses. Instead of making things better, the entire plan reinforced the lowest common denominator: nearly everyone is at poverty level.

That whole statement is sophomoric. Even the US has widespread socialist ideology- think Medicare, police, fire departments, roading and Wall Street bailouts. How about China that has a single Communist party like Cuba with an economy strong enough to lend the capitalist US billions to socialize costs of a banking crisis. So let me give you a less convenient South American nation on which to apply your theories: Costa Rica.

My counter theory: when nations go wrong, look for the psychopath despot at the top or the trade barriers or the war on home soil. There's your real culprit.

Final point: if embargo is as ineffective as you say, why were embargoes erected against Iraq and Iran in recent history? How about North Korea? Why did Obama just lift the sanctions against Myanmar?

All evidence I've ever seen is that embargoes/sanctions never achieve their purpose of changing government: they're more likely to strengthen despots while harming the civilian population. Sanctions also cause resident dictators to retaliate as best they can, as occurred in Cuba. If you have evidence to the contrary, can we see it? Be sure to include your rebuttal of this sort of thing: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 .

Will you not listen to people like Denis Halliday who was Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations (one of the elites) and resigned in 1998 after 34 years in the UN, saying "I am resigning because the policy of economic sanctions [against Iraq] is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that . . . Five thousand children are dying every month . . . I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these." Later he told a reporter that "I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible." His successor Hans von Sponeck also resigned in turn, saying "How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?"

Your counter-argument seems to be that the embargo was less effective in Cuba so it can be blamed on Communism or Castro. That's not even remotely logical and I think you refuse to provide evidence for your view because there is none.