Pros And Cons Of Embargo

431 Words2 Pages
Subsequently, the idea of national security has always been the first priority of the United States for many decades, especially security from nuclear attacks. Since 1982 Cuba was added to the terrorist list, pro-Embargo activists had achieved what was needed in order strengthen the Embargo. Of course though right? The priority of the United States is to protect Uncle Sam’s children, to provide safety for the citizens from frightful events imposed by terrorists. In fact, Embargo advocates have a point; the Castro regime was in involved with terrorist groups such as FARC and ETA even before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Terrorist groups of such caliber and manipulation would cause threats to the United States if there were to be disagreements…show more content…
So why would these activists keep continuing to pressure Cuba to being kept in the list of Sponsors of Terrorism? The answer is that the pro-Embargo advocates state the country of Cuba should be blamed for discouraging financial institutions from working within the country (Archibold and Davis); a reason which is completely irrelevant and blatant. In the past month, the United States government changed the ruling of Cuba being classified in the State Sponsors of Terrorism and the country is being removed from the listing. “The designation has no justification and undermines US credibility in the international community (Adams)”, was a response provided by US Army retired Brigadier General John Adams when the State of Sponsors of Terrorism in 1982 was enacted, indicating Cuba was harmless even before the start of the 21st century (Cuba Embargo). To conclude national security, Scott Lincicome provided a vital piece of information stating Cuba’s “danger” to the United States (Lincicome) , “Given the death of the Soviet empire, is extremely hard to believe that this little,
Open Document