Magnitus: You can try to frame the issue to circumvent the fact that the US controlled another country by proxy via a dictator and then cried wolf when said country revolved and chose not to honor commitments that were made while it was a puppet state.
We could argue whether the US was actualyl doing that or not, but that's irrelevant: in the same way the CCP's dictatorial past is irrelevant to their "embargo." The actions are independent of one another. Did Cuba actually make an argument (and a reasonably convincing case) that they "nationalized" the companies "because of US interference," or did it have other reasons? Meanwhile, the US directly imposed the embargo for the stated reason, which it had an objective case for.
However, I will bring your attention to this fact in particular:
"Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel voted against and the Pacific Island nations Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.[2][14] Human-rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[15] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[16] have also been critical of the embargo. "
Literally, out of 193 countries at an assembly, 188 agreed (and I'm sure you know how hard it is to reach a consensus internationally on such matters) that the US was in the wrong here.
That's fine, but the UN has no business in this affair. 100% of countries 2000 year ago practiced slavery. Did that mean it was ok back 2000 years ago, or does it not count 'cause they didn't have a UN to vote on it from? Since when has anyone recognized the UN as a moral authority on anything? The UN's purpose is to prevent WW3, but for some reason it wants to pretend it has something else going on. The UN also ignores the science that says CO2 followrs, not preceeds, rise in global temperatures. On one hand, the UN says we're going into an ice age, on the other hand the UN agrees that the world is getting hotter. The UN also says that everyone should move to cities to be more easily managed by their governments. Who takes the UN seriously?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to bash on the US specifically here (you guys are human too). Its just that before going too far in trying to take the moral high ground, it a good idea to look at your own misdeeds.
I'm sure we have some, but you picked a bad example.
I'm not saying that some of the things happening in China are not worrysome (they are). However, in the grand scheme of things, this particular issue is small potatoes. I would also strongly resist framing China as the worst country in the world (we all have skeletons in our closet).
I'm told that Japan in particular has actually been very worried about some joint operations between China and Russia as of late. Something about building a large navy. You would be right, devotion is small taters in the grand scheme of thing. However, GOG was the one whom capitulated to China's orders on devotion. GOG has no jurisdiction over China and Russia's Navy (honestly not sure how credible the threat is, but it's worth noting it doesn't look good, to the degree that people in Japan are telling me they suspect an offensive operation as early as January). So, since GOG's influence is limited to something we don't like but it does have influence over, perhaps we should be holding GOG's feet to the flames over that thing it
does have control over.
