The USA should invade Cuba

I get the moral instinct, and I don’t disagree that oppressive governments are a problem. I also see what you’re saying about Iran, Russia, China, and how Cuba fits into that picture strategically. The issue is that intent and alignment don’t override rules.

If my neighbor is abusing his wife, I don’t get to break into his house, beat him, and take control of the situation, even if I think I’m helping. There are laws and procedures for a safety, coordination, and trust. International law works the same way.

The UN Charter is clear. States must not use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state (UN Charter, Article 2(4)). The only accepted exceptions are self-defense or UN Security Council authorization (UN Charter, Article 51). Invading Cuba to spread freedom or remove an unfriendly government does not meet either.

This isn’t theoretical. The International Court of Justice ruled that using force or backing regime change without legal justification violates international law (Nicaragua v. United States, ICJ, 1986). After World War II, aggressive war was defined as the “supreme international crime” because of everything that follows from it (Nuremberg Judgment, 1946).

If “we think it’s morally good” becomes the standard, then any country can use that same reasoning. That is exactly what the current system is designed to prevent.

There’s also the practical side. Acting without coordination or warning increases the risk of retaliation and escalation, especially in regions already tied into larger conflicts. That doesn’t just affect the target country, it affects everyone connected to it.

So the disagreement isn’t about whether freedom is good. It’s about whether countries are allowed to ignore the rules to impose it. If the answer is yes, then the rules don’t mean anything.

I like your analogy of your neighbor abusing his wife, and yes that is true, you can’t just walk in and beat him up. You have to go through the process of 911 and giving details and a court case and everything. The problem is the USA has become the world’s 911 in a sense. As other countries do rely on us to keep them alive (South Korea, Kuwait, etc) and when USA threatens to leave alliances (NATO for example) the other countries beg for the USA to stay literally. So if no one else can do it, then  believe that “Silence in the face of evil is evil itself” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

That’s a fair extension, but it actually reinforces the point.

Even if the US plays a major security role, it isn’t the world’s “911” in a legal sense. Police still follow rules. They need authority, jurisdiction, and limits. Otherwise they’re not enforcing law, they’re bypassing it.

Internationally, that structure already exists. Use of force is only allowed under self defense or UN authorization (UN Charter, Articles 2(4) and 51). Acting outside that isn’t filling a gap, it’s ignoring the system.

Alliances like NATO are consent based and defensive, not a general license to intervene anywhere.

And that is a great quote, he was always heavily referenced in the Reformed circles I roled in. But if “silence is evil” justifies force, then every country can claim that same moral urgency. That’s how escalation starts.

What would be your legal justification for invading if you made the decision and a world court was asking you questions? 

I see that you’re taking it the legal way. Because the UN laws say basically “war is bad”. In my opinion, most wars that have been fought in history have been for a good cause (like ww2 getting rid of Germany, or independence wars of the west). The UN also is pretty irrelevant, as they make rules but they can’t enforce them, they can’t kick out Russia from Ukraine, they also can’t make other countries fight other countries wars. So if people aren’t going to be able to standup to the oppressive government of Cuba, that can’t provide food, clean water, medical care, etc, and either Russia isn’t trading that to them or the government hogs it all. Then that’s where you have to step in as the world’s superpower and free the nation, this is the exact same for Iran and Venezuela, as a bonus for oil trade. 

I get your point about bad governments and humanitarian concerns. But there’s a scope issue here too.

You’re focused on Cuba, but the US government’s first responsibility is to its own system and stability. If our own institutions are being strained or we’re putting ourselves at odds with allies, that’s a more immediate obligation than trying to restructure another country.

No leader is elected to fix the world. They’re elected to govern their own country within the law. Expanding into regime change abroad, especially outside legal frameworks, risks weakening the very system you’re trying to project.

And even on your standard, it has to be consistent. If the US can intervene in Cuba because it believes conditions are bad, then other countries could justify intervening in the US if they believe our system is failing. That cuts both ways.

So it’s not that Cuba “doesn’t matter.” It’s that legal authority and primary responsibility start at home, not with unilateral action abroad.

As the last round, I’d like to keep debating about this if you want, or we could try to debate something else, give me your response in the first paragraph please, sorry, just anxious.Ill also address your three main body paragraphs separately.

1. Your idea is that “USAs priority should be about self stability instead of other countries”. This is a key argument from opposing sides, I don’t disagree with you at all in it, but I also think it supports my idea. I keep using Iran as an example which I apologize for, but I think in my previous arguments I talked about how getting rid of Irans ties to Russia china North Korea. This is the same to the Cuba as it’d definitely increase national security by getting rid of enemy missile bases only 90 miles from the border. It’d help keep control and influence in the Caribbean of course but most importantly keeps eastern influence out, stopping the spread of eastern ideas to surroundings countries most importantly Central America/ Mexico.

2. Your argument is that the USA elects leaders to govern a people, not invade others. This could be more opinion, but I think this ties to the first argument of increasing national security.

3. Your argument is what’s stopping other countries from invading us if they view our system as corrupt. Very true but also that is just how war and global powers work, Russia invaded Ukraine to rejoin the USSRs land, but then why can’t Germany invade Russia then to regain land from WW2 or Japan getting eastern parts of Russia. I’m going to try to break it down with two viewpoints, the first being the literal viewpoint, as in other countries can’t invade the USA because of our military size and money. The other is the more philosophical side if you will, where I believe that Western values have always been superior, the only countries that would invade the USA is Russia, China, and North Korea, so let’s compare our values if we are debating values. Western culture has been enhanced through the USA and revolutionary wars to be free and equal rights for all. As all South, central, and North American(besides Canada) fought there independence for these, as eastern values more correlate as giving up some rights for protection, via ideas like socialism and communism. While Cuba wants to have the eastern ideas, they are supposed to be offering protection to their citizens, which you can clearly see is not happening. So what’s the point of keeping the government this way unless it’s just to keep the power they have.

Also final note, thank you for being respectful and thoughtful, instead of jus arguing and calling each other stupid like everyone does nowadays

Dude same, its hard to get good thoughtful dialogue these days. I always start polite/neutral but if the other person is dishonest or rude I have to fight very hard not to be rude lol...oh well...

I agree with a lot of what youre saying principally. There are cases where force is justified, especially in clear self defense. That’s already built into the rules (UN Charter, Article 51). If a country is directly attacked or there’s an imminent threat (many analysts and even the counter terrorism officials claimed oran wasnt an imminent threat), action can be justified.

Where I think we differ primarily is on future or general threats. Historically and legally, “they might become a problem” hasn’t been accepted as a valid reason for war. That standard is too loose.If we accept that, the rule collapses into “act when you feel justified.”

On Iran, I think you’re right that it’s a more serious argument, but it would still have to meet a self defense threshold, not just general hostility or indirect ties. That’s a much narrower claim than broad regime change.

On the values point, I don’t think the question is whether Western values are better. I’d probably agree they’re stronger in many ways (economically in many ways, nation building). The question is whether that gives a country the right to impose them by force. If superiority alone justifies intervention (I know you srent saying that), then any country that believes its system is better can make the same move.

So I think we actually agree on the core idea. Force can be justified. The disagreement is where the line is drawn and who gets to decide when it’s crossed. It did become more about Iran I guess lol. Thats fine, Cuba hasn't happened yet so we were using a similar situation to establish the governing principles for Cuba. 

Also for the next debate. Western vs Eastern values or something about socialism...Both would be solid.