Well, I was replying to spooje’s statement:
And my answer, more than under Castro, as illustrated in my response.
Sometimes I get the feeling while posting here that I am more anal retentive than the average poster, and I guess I am, I also have a hair trigger on Cuba issues.
Funny thing about Castro-all the old leftists love the guy! Let’s look at Castros’s accomplishments:
-he transformed a prosperous country, with a growing middle class, into one of the poorest countries in the Carribean
-under his rule, there hasn’t been any new buildings built in Cuba-Havana is falling apart!
-his rule has resulted in Cuba reverting to a “one crop” economy-any many ways, the Cuban economy is back where it was in the 1890’s!
-he has exported much of his educated people(Miami is full ofCuban doctors, lawyers, professors)
Yep, a shining triumph of socialism! Viva la revolucion!
Too bad the Cuban people are so cowed…I’d love to see Castro treated the way the Romanians treated Ceaucescue!
Don’t make too many assumptions about the Cuban people ralph, since 1960 or so there has been an almost constant slow simmer against Castro, both from inside and outside the government. Castro has responded by conducting periodic purges in the government and military, with a hamfist against any public dissent, and once in a while opening the escape valve of migration.
As to how the Romanians treated Ceaceuscu, remember that a whole lot of things had to happen before him and his wife’s body were shown on Romanian tv. Namely the collapse of the eatern bloc. Will that ever happen to Castro? Don’t know, but if it does you’ll see him and his brother, since Castro doesn’t have a wife.
A good point and one with which I agree. Here endeth the hijack.
Your dates do not make sense. Batista lost power in 1958/1959. I assume that you meant 1948 (but then, you have Batista leaving power a little early).
So, anyone have a guess when Fidel dies/loses power?
2056
Fidel is quite clearly immortal and outside the normal rules of politics. For decades, The Economist’s yearly special edition, The World in 19– used to predict the imminent fall of Castro. About five years ago, one of their main predictions was that since they had clearly always been wrong on this one, they predicted that Castro would rule for ever and never die. Maybe I can find a copy of the article somewhere.
No, the dates are right. Batista actually assumed power 3 times all told, in a coup called “the sargents’ revolution” in 1933, he was an army sargent at the time. By being elected, surprisingly enough in an election that most agree was not fixed, in 1940. And in another coup in 1952.
Castro’s hold on power has little to do with politics, and much more to do with ruthlessness. The Cuban government is an almost constant state of purge, ministers are replaced at the first sign they’re becoming too “popular”, the most recent example was Rene Robaina sometimes called the “Miami Vice minister”, because of his penchant for unconstructed jackets. He was replaced by a quiet, unassuming nonentity named Perez Roque, I think. Some of my friends in Cuba seem to think another purge is imminent, btw.
A quick survey of websites does not show evidence that American children who commotted crimes as children were executed when children. I don’t see how this makes it less reprehensible. If you feel that this makes it okay, I can’t accept your insipid apology.
Interesting, HBO pulled from its May schedule Oliver Stone’s movie about Castro. Although I couldn’ find any link to why HBO pulled it, my guess is that it was a gushing piece of Castro-loving, and HBO felt that given recent events in Cuba, it was probably not a good time for this movie.
Oh really? What about this definition: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
What evidence do you have that they intended to intimidate or coerce the government of Cuba? Looks to me that they were just trying to escape a repressive regime that kills people for trying to leave. This was an act of self defense, not terrorism.
No they wouldn’t, and even if they would, that doesn’t make it right.
So the fact that the US has claimed moral superiority means that they have lost moral superiority? Sorry, I don’t see how that follows. That’s like saying that people who helped slaves escape had no business lobbying for abolition; by refusing to take into account the wishes of others to have slavery, they lost any moral authority to tell people what to do.
bayonet1976
I think you ought to check again. According to you, Batista held power from 1958 to 1966.
Hmmm, let’s see
Ok, so I 1958 instead of 1952, and then when I read it again I still saw 1952. Cut me some slack, english is not my first language. I’m not saying that’s a good excuse, but that’s all I have right now.
The Ryan, I have absolutely no sympathy for Castro or his regime and if you read any of my posts on that topic you will realize that. I said I was playing devil’s advocate here and, the fact that you and I utterly dislike the regime does not mean they have no right to their sovereignty. That is all that I am saying
Would I like to see many thing change in Cuba? You bet. But tehre are many things I’d like to see changed in the USA too. My point is that there are no absolute right or wrong and the best way is to try to get along with other countries.
The fact is that Cuba has been under siege fighting for its very existence for the last few decades. If the USA were in any similar position we’d be talking nukes for any outside threat. Today the USA is in NO danger as a country and yet we are seeing some real erosion in civil and human rights. I think it is wrong in Cuba and I think it is wrong in America.
Cuba is guilty of refusing to go along with the international community in taking into account their values and wishes. The USA too.
I am not saying at all that Cuba and the US are the same. I am saying none are perfect and it is a matter of degree. Cuba is not all wrong and the USA is not all right… That’s all I’m saying.
But when a country like the USA says to the world community “screw you” then it should not complain when other countries do the same.
The USA saying it refuses to go along with the interbnational community on a number of issues because “we are sovereign and independent and we do whatever the fuck we please” is the best justification for other countries to do the same.
If the USA is free to impose the death penalty on anyone they think deserves it, then it cannot complain when Cuba does the same. Why would Cuba not have the right to decide? Regarding the death penalty Cuba and the USA have the same response to the rest of the world: “screw you”.
The USA is also very hypocritical regarding Cuba because they acuse Cuba of not letting their people out but, at the same time they have pressured Cuba to tighten their grip so that people cannot get out. The USA acuses Cuba of not letting the people out but at the same time the USA pressures Cuba into tightening things so it does not have to deal with the influx. The USA has complained many times that Cubans would not make it to Florida if Castro prevented them from leaving so pardon me if I find the whole thing pretty disgusting.
Sorry if I don’t see the world in black and white but in shades.
And the US being highly critical, even imposing an embargo, does not infringe on their sovereignty.
[Snyder]That’s the sort of woolly headed liberalism that leads to being eaten.[/Snyder]
There is good, and there is evil. I don’t see why so many people try to pretend otherwise.
That’s not quite accurate. The Cuban government has been under seige for several decades, the Cuban nation has not. Also, that siege started when Cuba stole American property and allied itself with the country which was itself besieging the US.
No, the best justification for continuing one’s actions in the face of widespread opposition is not “Well, they did it first”. The best justification is being right. The US defends its actions not on the basis of “we’re sovereign and we can do whatever we want” but on “we think this is what’s right”. You may disagree that what the US is doing is right, but if you’re going to use the US’s unilateralism to justify that of another country’s, then it must be on the basis that that country is right, not merely sovereign.
My problem is not that you see the world in shades, but that you seem to see it in shade.
bayonet1976:
I didn’t mean that to sound belligerent. Sorry if it did.
>> And the US being highly critical, even imposing an embargo, does not infringe on their sovereignty.
I have never said the embargo infringes on their sovereignty
>> There is good, and there is evil. I don’t see why so many people try to pretend otherwise.
I know full well there is good and there is evil but not all is good in the USA and not all is evil in Cuba.
>> That’s not quite accurate. The Cuban government has been under seige for several decades, the Cuban nation has not.
Nice rhetoric. Reminds me of the rhetoric the communist countries used in their subversive activities: We are trying to liberate the people from the exploiting capitalist governments.
>> Also, that siege started when Cuba stole American property and allied itself with the country which was itself besieging the US.
Cuba has not been a threat for the USA for a long time now.
I am glad you have it so clear in your mind that there is absolute right and absolute wrong and the USA is right and Cuba is wrong. Unfortunately most of the world does not see this so clearly and believe the USA is wrong on many counts and this causes quite a few problems. The Cuban government believes it is right to the same extent that the US government believes it is right. You do not get to define right for the rest of the world. Sorry.
And you do sound belligerent. I have already said that I dislike the Cuban government and that I am NOT defending their actions. I am merely pointing out their right under international law to their own system of government even if it is all fucked up by your or my standards.
I’m a littel confused, The Ryan. Are you saying the US has never infringed upon Cuban sovereignity?
Cuba didn’t have any sovereignty prior to the 1959 Revolution. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, look up the Platt Amendment.)
You implied that others were not recognizing a right to sovereignty.
That’s quite different from saying that there is no absolute good or evil.
That is not what I said. What I am saying is that there is nothing hypocritical about a country advancing its ideas about morality without automatically accepting other countries’ moralities. In fact, the two are rather at odds.
Sure, but we’re talking since 1959.