Steps are actively being made in to lift the trade embargoes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

They seized tons of American property without compensation. They've also fueled communist revolutions with money, supplies, and troops.

They offered a compensation in the forms of treasure bonds, payable in 20 years.

The Revolution was not marxist until 1961, two years after Castro came into power, and after the USA began being openly hostile to it.

People there were literally dying of hunger, the redistribution of land succeeded in feeding them.

But of course seizing the land owned by a corporation is a violation of Human Rights, whereas underpaying workers to the point they die of starvation is just business. /s

> A trade embargo with a country on grounds of it being ideologically different falls under "interfering unnecessarily" in my opinion.

That sort of hand waving does a disservice to history. Initially the embargo was enacted because Cuba nationalized industries without providing fair compensation (a).

It's true that the embargoes have been more ideological since then, but the ideology is that fairly basic human rights (life, liberty, free speech) should be respected (b).

All that being said, the Castros are pretty entrenched. Maybe healthier interaction with Cuba would promote human rights faster. But you don't have to make straw man assertions to make that point.

a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_...

b) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Political...

The nationalisations that caused the first trade embargo followed hostile moves from the Eisenhower administration by e.g. reducing trade quotas and through the refusal of an American owned refinery to sell to the Cuban government. The rest of the nationalisation followed as a retaliation against the that trade embargo.

Basically Eisenhower shot himself in the foot by first rebuffing early advances by Castro that sent Castro head first into the arms of the Soviets, and then it just got worse from that.

It had nothing to do with ideology on either side, but with money and power.

America was shocked by the nationalizations in Mexico in the decades before, so it's unsurprising that this was considered bad form. Embargo was always the escalation of choice then.

I believe Castro was also pretty Marxist well before 1959. That would have constrained what any politician in the US could have done.

Your second point is pretty hollow, as there are MANY nations that we trade with that violate the basic human rights of their own citizens or those in neighboring countries/territories.

My point is that there are points more tangible than ideological differences. I honestly don't have a dog in this fight, but I think there are fair points on the other side of things that are being glossed over instead of addressed.