The Possible (and Already Ongoing) US Intervention in Cuba

[Leonardo17]

There is a nice 2015 movie by Michael Moore called “Where to Invade Next” in which American interventionism and over reliance on its military is being criticized.
 
Today in 2026 we have a new chapter of US interventionism with a new head of the Republican Party who managed to become the US President for the second time.
 
So I think this is an issue worth discussing. I was still a teenager when 9/11 happened. I remember some of my friend saying things like “Let the US go there and destroy this backward Taliban regime. Only good can come out of this”. Others where more critical citing the illegality of this intervention and the fact that Oil was the main reason why G.W. Bush wanted this war with Iraq (despite the fact that Saddam had done absolutely nothing to support Al-Qaida).
 
And there is also the fact that Democracies are not some passive / elitist governance models reserved to some well off countries. I think democratic countries have the right and duty to promote democracy and freedom everywhere else in the world. But what does that mean exactly?
 
- Do we start kicking all the dictators? DO we intervene by air and then send ground troops? Do we sit on our backs and simply condemn horrific actions that were perpetrated by oppressive regimes? Do we send our spies to create popular uprisings? Can we impose economic blockades on them? Where does all of this lead us ultimately?
 
The answer to these questions can from a not so far away place for me. So I’m going to ask a rhetorical question. What if someone like D. Trump was re-elected again and started truly dismantling whatever is left of US democracy? And what if (let’s say) Canada and Mexico decided to ask jointly to restore democracy in the US and bring it back to democracy by force if necessary?
 
So let me answer to this from my own perspective: There are stuff happening in my country right now and these are not so positive changes (with my country ranking at the bottom of press freedoms etc.). I naturally do not want Russian, European or any type of other boots in my land or airplanes above my head I can testify to that.
 
So what would I want?
 
1) The recognition of the events that are happening in my country by foreign governments and organizations. That’s the most important thing. Today there was a statement by the Socialist International (a group that unites socialist + left wing parties all over the world). They are clearly denouncing the Turkish government’s unlawful and anti-democratic acts and that’s such an important thing for us here.
 
2) If things went really ugly (yes) we would expect support like the UK + the US supported resistance movements all over Europe against Hitler in WWII.
 
- Allies did not attack Hitler because he was “undemocratic” they attacked him because he was attacking them and everyone else.
 
+ During the first Gulf War, it was Saddam who attacked Kuwait thus getting UN resolutions that condemned his actions and giving the US an acceptable reason to attack him (to free Koweit from invasion).
 
So this is the debate. What does the term “Militant Democracy” mean to you and what are the limits to this “Militant Democracy” approach?

[The Grand Nudger]

If Canada or Mexico sent troops into a civil warring United States the us forces and militants would kill them then go right back to fighting each other.

Invading the us is land war in Asia level stupid no matter the pretext. The general public in this country are more and better armed than both Mexico and Canada’s militaries combined. The territory is vast, and contains a patchwork of every type of terrain and climate that have ever stymied expeditionary forces anywhere on earth at any time. Then….then…there’s the us military.

[awty]

https://youtube.com/shorts/jKuE6hKBUCY?s...Is9oXPKFtA

I can't seem to post this but I think it's what things sound like in Leo's head.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is a nice 2015 movie by Michael Moore called “Where to Invade Next” in which American interventionism and over reliance on its military is being criticized.
 
Today in 2026 we have a new chapter of US interventionism with a new head of the Republican Party who managed to become the US President for the second time.
 
So I think this is an issue worth discussing. I was still a teenager when 9/11 happened. I remember some of my friend saying things like “Let the US go there and destroy this backward Taliban regime. Only good can come out of this”. Others where more critical citing the illegality of this intervention and the fact that Oil was the main reason why G.W. Bush wanted this war with Iraq (despite the fact that Saddam had done absolutely nothing to support Al-Qaida).
 
And there is also the fact that Democracies are not some passive / elitist governance models reserved to some well off countries. I think democratic countries have the right and duty to promote democracy and freedom everywhere else in the world. But what does that mean exactly?
 
- Do we start kicking all the dictators? DO we intervene by air and then send ground troops? Do we sit on our backs and simply condemn horrific actions that were perpetrated by oppressive regimes? Do we send our spies to create popular uprisings? Can we impose economic blockades on them? Where does all of this lead us ultimately?
 
The answer to these questions can from a not so far away place for me. So I’m going to ask a rhetorical question. What if someone like D. Trump was re-elected again and started truly dismantling whatever is left of US democracy? And what if (let’s say) Canada and Mexico decided to ask jointly to restore democracy in the US and bring it back to democracy by force if necessary?
 
So let me answer to this from my own perspective: There are stuff happening in my country right now and these are not so positive changes (with my country ranking at the bottom of press freedoms etc.). I naturally do not want Russian, European or any type of other boots in my land or airplanes above my head I can testify to that.
 
So what would I want?
 
1) The recognition of the events that are happening in my country by foreign governments and organizations. That’s the most important thing. Today there was a statement by the Socialist International (a group that unites socialist + left wing parties all over the world). They are clearly denouncing the Turkish government’s unlawful and anti-democratic acts and that’s such an important thing for us here.
 
2) If things went really ugly (yes) we would expect support like the UK + the US supported resistance movements all over Europe against Hitler in WWII.
 
- Allies did not attack Hitler because he was “undemocratic” they attacked him because he was attacking them and everyone else.
 
+ During the first Gulf War, it was Saddam who attacked Kuwait thus getting UN resolutions that condemned his actions and giving the US an acceptable reason to attack him (to free Koweit from invasion).
 
So this is the debate. What does the term “Militant Democracy” mean to you and what are the limits to this “Militant Democracy” approach?

I object to the term ‘intervention’. You make it sound like they’re trying to get Cuba to stop drinking.

Boru

[Angrboda]

https://youtube.com/shorts/jKuE6hKBUCY?s...Is9oXPKFtA

I can't seem to post this but I think it's what things sound like in Leo's head.

Funny, I picture it as a constant, dull, grinding noise.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

https://youtube.com/shorts/jKuE6hKBUCY?s...Is9oXPKFtA

I can't seem to post this but I think it's what things sound like in Leo's head.

Funny, I picture it as a constant, dull, grinding noise.

It's kind of like you're inside trying to get some design work done and there's someone outside practicing their serve by constantly thwacking tennis balls against the wall of your house.

Boru

[Leonardo17]

- I’m not sure I’m following (I mean the Joke)
 
Grand Nudger:
 
- I mean in theory. There are mystics who predicted that at some time in this century there would be some sort of confrontation between the US and the rest of the world. This is not such a distant threat if the Trump cabinet keeps doing things the way it does.
 
/ So let me answer the question for myself: I watched the videos of Iran’s Shah Reza Pahlavi. While it is true that Iranians wanted some sort of intervention (Just like Venezuelans and just like half of Cubans today) I think that bombing was still one of the last things they wanted.
 
See, Based on the ideas of the French Sociologists Gustave LeBon, Adolf Hitler assumed that chaos would break out and panic would take over London when his Luftwaffe started hitting London. The exact opposite happened. The English became more resilient and became more helpful toward one-another whenever the Luftwaffe struck them (Just like Ukrainians since 4 years now). And the opposite is also true. The allies in WWII assumed that the will of the German people would be broken if they struck civilian targets from the air. Today it is estimated that this was a mistake and that it actually delayed the end of WWII because the Germans too developed more nationalism and a stronger sense of solidarity whenever their towns and cities were bombed.
 
- So on a personal level, I believe in 1) seeing democratic endeavors and anti-democratic actions in foreign countries and 2) Supporting these democratic endeavors while using the tools of international law against the autocrats and their close circle.
 
Even economic sanctions are (just like in Cuba) actions that are hitting the ordinary people more than the ruling elites.
 
/So I don’t even know if “hitting them with everything you got” is even a true response to such tyrannical regimes. On the contrary, these are usually regimes that are usually being kept alive by the interventions of this or that international actor. In the case of Cuba, they basically lost whatever support they had when the Soviet Union collapsed. So I’m not a political scientist, but how hard could it have been to support the more democratic elements in that society and bring them to accept a more peaceful and prosperous approach without the use of brute force (which includes economic blockades and/or other types of forceful interventions)?
 
So sorry if I am talking too much but half of the US’s bombs have been used in Iran. And Iran seem to have maintained 70% of its stock of drones + missiles. + I am reading that the US has also used 50% of its stocks of air defenses (while Israel has kept most of its air defenses and will be able to use them in a future conflict if necessary).
 
So I don’t know if the right type of endeavor is being employed in any of the situations mentioned above. The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. And yet the Taliban are still there. So more often than not, no one can be sure about even the objectives of these series of military interventions by the US. Maybe we need to go to the core of this issue and spend more time in our understanding of the term “militant democracy”.

[The Grand Nudger]

A fun one.

I think we have to point out that the us didn't invade afghanistan to spread democracy. That's something that the poor souls tasked with the project added for a smear of legitimacy. Even so, it did work. A whole generation of people lived under much improved conditions from our liberal democratic pov. That's what made it so tragic when the mad king decided to negotiate with the taliban instead of the government and set the gears of withdrawal into inexorable motion.

So, is a militant democracy descriptive ..or pejorative? Is it a society that aggressively pursues and guards democratic institutions and policies, or is it an authoritarian society that uses the pretext of democracy to engage in corruption and violence at home and abroad?