There are at least 2 sides of every story.
go back to the 1900's when the uss Maine was sunk, and we entered into the Cuba war....
and the ensuing control of the country by Bastista.
The USA has long had a history of selective memory, and rewriting history.
None of that excuses the current dictatorship, but there is a reason Fidel was so popular with the masses, and still is to an extent...
my point is you should not just look at the last 50 years.
Who said the monroe doctrine was fair or just... other than the USA.
regardless of politics, its a unspoiled region, close to my home. I want to visit.
Mr. Bill, please elaborate! What is your point? In 1898, the US assisted Cuban rebels to overthrow Spanish colonization in Cuba. We also did not have intent to occupy as stated by the Teller Amendment and a politically independent Cuba was always the objective. The Platt Amendment was also advanced due to fears of political stability in Cuba and it (Platt A) was eventually a thorn in the side of Cuba (and eventually repealed in the 30's under Roosevelt's "good neighbor policy" - except we kept Gitmo), but the Treaty of Reciprocity was advanced to provide Cuba with favorable trade status with the US. All this in the period immediately following the Spanish-American war was basically advanced in the interest of insuring political stability and prosperity in Cuba - certainly in the interest of the US, no doubt.
Batista was born in 1901 so the immediate years (1900 - 1930) following Cuban independence were certainly not "ensuing control by Batista". In fact, the way I read it, the US was always uneasy about Batista because of his rebellion in the 30's which led to the overthrow of a pro-American government. Indeed, the political in-stability of Cuba, as America feared, was always a reality. It seems that Batista was always an un-easy ally, but eventually an ally nevertheless due to his anti-communist position.
I'm not sure how the Monroe Doctrine is unfair in this circumstance, as you insinuate. The intent of the Doctrine was to prevent Latin America from future colonization by European powers. At the time, all colonies except Cuba and Puerto Rico had gained independence. The Brits were on board with the Doctrine as well. So how does the Doctrine apply with regard to the independence of Cuba?
I think there is no denying that some Americans politicians had at least hoped for annexation of Cuba at the time of the Spanish-American war, but the Teller Amendment to the joint resolution for war against Spain seems to have prevented it.
Marco Rubio made reference a few nights ago to the mystifying behavior of our current President, who also expressed some disdain for American colonization in Cuba, which never occurred.
But thanks for stimulating my interest! I read some interesting things about this topic. It seems that our interest in Cuba has always been for political stability and prosperity - surely to protect American financial interests in the sugar industry in origin. If that's selective memory and rewriting, let's hear the rest of the story.
