My point was just that regular Cubans actually did alright, much better than US propaganda would have you believe, and better than most of the other states in the region, including those which were heavily subsidized by the US.
They could have easily ended up with a fascist police state or a civil war.
American policymakers obviously had legitimate reasons to fear anything that seemed like it might further Soviet interests, given the overall climate of the Cold War, and so as someone born in the mid 1980s I find it hard to judge their intentions and actions, after the fact. However, I tend to think that things would have turned out much better overall for everyone involved if we had kept up diplomatic and economic relations with the Castro regime right from the start, instead of basically forcing them into Soviet arms.
You could say, "But that's not a fair comparison, the USSR subsidized things that actually helped people in Cuba while the US only funded commando death squads and fruit exporters, of course Cuba had a higher standard of living".. at which point I'd ask you to review what you just wrote.
It wasn't pre-emptive or a straw man -- the poster had just (not pre-emptive) said that living standards were an unfair comparison due to USSR subsidies to Cuba (not a strawman), which is a fair point. I just pointed out that the US supported it's pet governments as well, and contrasted the USSR's approach with the USA's.
Ever read that book 'The Ugly American' back in the day? Great read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ugly_American
Jeez, another straw man. Are they really necessary?
Actually I do think that Cuba has been tragically mishandled by the US. I would have thought that trading with them and being a good example of Freedom for them would have been much better than trying to punish the dictators with perpetual embargo.
That said, I sympathize with Cuban refugees who are furious with the mistreatment of dissidents and want the US government to continue a hard line against Cuba.