Exactly.

What we're doing to Cuba isn't exactly conducive to revolution in the first place.

The way they see it (and in many regards they're fully correct), is that the majority of their poverty situation is due to US actions regarding the embargo. If this is the vision of 'democracy' that they're getting which the US is trying to get them to adopt, obviously they're not going to listen to us anytime soon. I know I wouldn't. If a state acts directly in harming my people and claim it's in the best interest of the people, then obviously nothing coming out of their mouth is going to be very credible.

And of coarse the biggest reasons is that, because we're starving the populace, it makes them more dependent upon the government. It just gives dictators more power.

One of the main justifications Castro uses in having an indefinite executive with dictatorial powers is to provide for adequate defense against US imperialism. Obviously, giving this rhetoric credit isn't going to help the situation. What we need to do is eliminate an embargo (that's purpose was to stop Soviet missiles from entering Cuba that is a half-century old anyway) and enter direct talks with the Cuban government.

We have to recognize and respect the sovereignty and self-determination of Cuba (and other states for that matter) and their right to develop a democratically popular leftist state. This is a biggy in Latin America. The reason for it becoming a hotbed of anti-American rhetoric is because whenever a populist government pops up, the US tries in all of its power to topple that government to retain control over the Americas, even if it means using terrorism and installing tyrannical rightest dictators (Chile, etc.).

Basically, if we start to develop a foreign policy in Latin America more geared toward partnership, instead of control, I think we'll see our problems start fading away.