Or, to take a slightly more real-world example, if Serbia were to invade Kosova and bomb Camp Bondsteel, the EU would indeed be justified in responding with sufficient force to end Serbian aggression. "Sufficient force to end Serbian Aggression" does not, however, include terror-bombing Beograd.
But there is a world of difference between this scenario and toppling moderately social democratic governments in Latin America at the behest of various US-based transnational companies and replacing them with unreconstructed fascists.
For what it's worth I would even say that taking various hostile actions (short of war, however) against Cuba was justified while they were playing host to Soviet rockets aimed at the US. What's not OK is keeping Cuba in thumbscrews after the rockets have been taken away. (And of course the same goes for Poland and the missile defence system strategic radar installations.)
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But we know it won't work in the first place, which makes it awfully suspicious. Going through that much foreign policy hassle just to get a site for a pork barrel project? I wouldn't be willing to bet money against it, but I wouldn't be willing to bet money on it either.
But of course you're right that absent strategic weapons - all kinds of strategic weapons - the "Cuba justification" breaks down. I agree with you that military bases from a power you don't like are not in and of themselves sufficient reason to give an independent country grief.
