The Glorious American Justice system!

[rvg]

Well as to the blockade of Cuba, that was simply illegal.

Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.

[Husar]

Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.

You mean instead of starting WW3 the US decided to enact a blockade instead and now people should be thankful to the USA for not starting WW3?

[rvg]

You mean instead of starting WW3 the US decided to enact a blockade instead and now people should be thankful to the USA for not starting WW3?

Whatever floats your boat. Blame us or the commies, it's just a matter of preference.

[Husar]

Whatever floats your boat. Blame us or the commies, it's just a matter of preference.

The commies didn't threaten to start WW3 when you placed nukes in their backyard.
When they placed nukes in your backyard in return, you did threaten to start WW3 as you just said.

It's not a matter of preference, it's a completely different reaction.

[rvg]

The commies didn't threaten to start WW3 when you placed nukes in their backyard.
When they placed nukes in your backyard in return, you did threaten to start WW3 as you just said.

It's not a matter of preference, it's a completely different reaction.

If you insist on thanking JFK for not destroying the world then go right ahead.

[Husar]

If you insist on thanking JFK for not destroying the world then go right ahead.

Do you give up or do you simply not read the posts you reply to?

[rvg]

Do you give up or do you simply not read the posts you reply to?

Let's just say that we're talking about slightly different things. You're focusing on a tit-for-tat nuclear missile placement in asserting the guilt. I'm focusing on the fact that both sides had major naval battlegroups around Cuba fully prepared for an engagement, just waiting for a final go-ahead. Either side could have lit up the tinderbox with a single spark. In this situation I find ascribing guilt or innocence to be a matter of personal preference. It was a different world back in 1962. There was us and there was them.

[HoreTore]

Cuba hasn't been blockaded in decades though. It's still under a US embargo, but there's nothing wrong with embargoes. Cuba can trade at will with whomever she likes, just not with the US. As for what happened in 1962, the question of legality kinda pales in comparison with how close we got to WW3. Cuba was blockaded, yes, and for a damn good reason.

.....Exept, of course that the embardo didn't start in 1962 or was related to the missile crisis. It was started in 1960 as a response to Cuba nationalization of the sugar industry.

Which, in turn, lead to Castro seeking closer relations to the USSR(he had to trade with someone), which lead to nukes placed on Cuba.

The iron law of unintended consequences strikes yet again.

[rvg]

.....Exept, of course that the embardo didn't start in 1962 or was related to the missile crisis. It was started in 1960 as a response to Cuba nationalization of the sugar industry.

Which, in turn, lead to Castro seeking closer relations to the USSR(he had to trade with someone), which lead to nukes placed on Cuba.

The iron law of unintended consequences strikes yet again.

Sure, and one of the contributing causes of Pearl Harbor was our refusal to sell oil to Imperial Japan. So what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

[HoreTore]

Sure, and one of the contributing causes of Pearl Harbor was our refusal to sell oil to Imperial Japan. So what? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Well, my main point is that the cuban missile crisis was not the cause of US hostility, rather US hostility was the cause of the missile crisis.

The second point, I guess, would be that the US created a Stalin instead of accepting a Tito. The US could have had a far more friendly Cuba than they got, and I do believe a friendly Cuba would be more beneficial to the US than a hostile Cuba.

[rvg]

Well, my main point is that the cuban missile crisis was not the cause of US hostility, rather US hostility was the cause of the missile crisis.

Perhaps the causes of that hostility also need an evaluation. Eisenhower wouldn't embargo Cuba just for fun.

The second point, I guess, would be that the US created a Stalin instead of accepting a Tito. The US could have had a far more friendly Cuba than they got, and I do believe a friendly Cuba would be more beneficial to the US than a hostile Cuba.

Hindsight.

[HoreTore]

Perhaps the causes of that hostility also need an evaluation. Eisenhower wouldn't embargo Cuba just for fun.

Already stated the reason: cuban nationalization of the sugar industry.

Hindsight.

Of course, never claimed otherwise. "Law of unintended consequences" hints at hindsight, doesn't it?

[rvg]

Already stated the reason: cuban nationalization of the sugar industry.

There was more to it: Castro basically expropriated anything belonging to the Americans.