The US polecis and action AGAINST CUBA ARE WRONG

To start:Saudi Arabia was an ally in many wars. Saudi Arabia is also not Communist. So bring them up is irrelevant to rather or not it's okay. Besides, Saudi Arabia could be considered more of an Absolute Monarchy than a Dictatorship.Pro has continued to ignore me. Being Communist was only half the issue... Cuba shown great hostility towards US Interests, taking US owned businesses and other such locations and turning them into Government property. This high-level theft isn't tolerated.Pro has continued bring up nations who are neither Communist, hostile to US interests, or in the middle of America.Cuba is Communist... Still hostile to US interests, has a history of trying to spread Communism, and is 105 miles away from Florida.(1) Cuba is one of few Communist nations, of the other nations, the US is only 'friendly' with one, because it's in the best interests of the World that us and China not be on bad terms.(2)[1] http://www.distance.to...[2] http://geography.about.com...[]- Batista vs CastroThe Pro brought up Batista. When I brought him up, Pro criticized me for not following the Resolution. Now he has brought him up again. That's okay, lets continue.Batista had killed around 20,000 Cubans during his Regime. Castro is responsible for 73,000 to 85,657 deaths, with a high estimates of 141,000 people murdered under Castro.(3,4)"you said its the us concern because were all live on the same planet but should not the haul panet get a say on the matter" This is a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I said when the world is in danger of revolutions and wars, it has to act. An example is the Middle East revolts, because they depend on the Middle East being some what stable. Well this example, Cuba, isn't a threat to the World, but to America, so it's America's place to act.The problem with the UN is that they are weak. They want to make everyone happy with an idealistic childish concept of politics. Another issue is that the UN doesn't control the Embargo, nor are they the ones threatened by Cuba. If Cuba was a global threat, than the UN would be more concerned about it, and you would see different results. But Cuba isn't a threat to them, so their opinion is irrelevant. Cuba is a threat to American nations like the many it tried to overthrow. This makes them America's business, not the UN's.[3] http://www.genocidewatch.org...[4] http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com...[]- The US real objectives.The problem with claiming the a nation like the US has been planning on conquering Cuba is that it's not realistic. If a nation as willing for war as the USA wanted to conquer Cuba, it would have happened a long time ago.Many Dictatorships have 'elections.' The inability to elect doesn't make it a Dictatorship. the office of dictator: autocratic rule, control, or leadership: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated(5)If the leader or party has absolute power, regardless of elections, it's a Dictatorship.Cuba is still a Dictatorship.(6,7)The Pro has only rewritten his last argument without tackling my prior argument against it.[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[7] http://listverse.com...[]- U.S terrorismThere is no sources provided prove of any terror attack against Cuba.Most American nations were never in the Embargo to begin with. It's a psychological thing, when you are not involved in something, you stop seeing the point in it, even when there is one. Besides, how many people back up the Embargo doesn't determine if it's wrong. That is Appeal to the People.The Pro is using Red Herring. Terrorism is wrong, but we aren't talking about American Terrorism. We are discussing the Embargo. - RepressionThe Pro claims the people of Cuba are not repressed, then claims "only most of the Cuban people try to beat the protester up." Is Cuba repressed? Yes. (8,9,10,11,12)[8] http://www.heritage.org...[9] http://www.infoplease.com...[10] http://www.nationsonline.org...[11] http://www.nationmaster.com...[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...[]"cuba has problemes kepping its infrastructure uo because of the embargo if the hospital are in ruin its the U.S. fault"That is terrible logic.If the hospital lacks funding, it's because of the government proportionately vast military spending.This argument alone shows the mass Bias the Pro has in the topic. The Pro still has no sources.The Pro has dropped the following Arguments/Sections of Argument:-Is the Embargo Helping the US?-Is the US Embargo Helping?-What are the US Justification for the Embargo-Support of the People-Castro still a Threat? Pro has dropped nearly every argument, and in so doing, Pro has conceded that...- The Embargo is helping the Us- The Embargo is helping the - The US is justified for the Embargo- The Support of the People isn't irrelavent- Castro is still a threat.The Pro has thrown the Debate by dropping these points.