> but comparing Cuba before Castro and after Castro wouldn't be fair. Pre-Castro there was a lot of foreign investment, post-Castro there was an embargo.

Seems to be a direct consequence of Fidel Castro's political initiatives. I'm sure we can agree that Castro's regime has at least some responsibilities in this outcome.

> You can argue whether that's something that can be blamed on him, but if we were to give him the benefit of the doubt I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.

That assumption is rather disingenuous. There's a clear before/after period in Cuba. I'm sure you agree that Fidel Castro is the direct responsible for this revolution. If he is responsible for this change, what exactly leads you to believe that he holds no responsibility in any negative consequence that arose naturally from his direct political actions and planning?