He also shoots people who try to outplay him in Dance Dance Revolucion.
Here’s to Fidel! Not as murderous as Kim Jong Il! Less crazy than Mussolini! Imprisoned fewer policial opponents than Baby Doc Duvalier! Engaged in fewer acts of cannibalism than Idi Amin!
[QUOTE=lalenin]
This is factually wrong. The US government may have backed the Batista during his initial coup in 1952, but I’m pretty sure that by 1956 the US government had an arms embargo against Batista’s government and had pretty much withdrawn support, leading to his departure in 1958.
[/QUOTE]
So why then has the US been against Castro since he assumed power? He didn’t immediately start with his despotism the he’s known for now.
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
So why then has the US been against Castro since he assumed power? He didn’t immediately start with his despotism the he’s known for now.
[/QUOTE]
“Socialism is bad, M’kay?”
[QUOTE=Sean Factotum]
So why then has the US been against Castro since he assumed power? He didn’t immediately start with his despotism the he’s known for now.
[/QUOTE]
Not quite as soon as he assumed power, but soon after when Fidel ordered the nationalization of US owned companies. The US was predictably upset, and the situation has no improved since then.
But to clarify, Fidel was a big a despot when he assumed power as he is now. If anything he was more ruthless. He was not the de facto political leader of Cuba, only of its military. After the revolution, there was a revolutionary council which elected a president, and was moving towards holding elections. Fidel systematically arrested and either imprisoned or executed the members of the council for treason and eventually used mod rule to force president Urrutia to resign. It was at that point that he became the political and military leader.
The real question is why Fidel would nationalize those industries, in Cuba we learned that this was because Fidel was always a communist and the means of production should belong to the people. I was pretty surprised when I learned that outside of Cuba it was believed that Fidel was not a communist at heart and had been pushed to that by antagonism from the US. I don’t really know which side to believe, I know for a fact that most of history I learned in Cuba was crap, but maybe this one bit was not.
[QUOTE=Plynck]
But certain people in the rest of America feel rather strongly about Florida’s Electoral College votes…
[/QUOTE]
If you’re talking about presidential candidates, I believe that was precisely my point. Sorry for not being precise.
All presidential candidates support the current “Cuban Isolation” policy, because not supporting that policy gains you no electoral votes outside of Florida while almost guaranteeing losing Florida votes. So it’s a very safe position to take.
That’s it in a nutshell, RyJae. You ask why no other country gets the Cuba treatment, and the simple answer is that no other country has such huge numbers of impassioned expatriates controlling a large number of electoral votes.
First Generalissimo Franco, and now Castro.
Isn’t it weird how well Hispanic dictators do the “not dead yet” bit?
[QUOTE=RyJae]
Because I do not understand the situation very well. Help me out here, why?
Things I know:
1: Castro led a revolution and turned his country communist.
2: After the Soviet Union collapsed Cuba became broke
3: He imprisons political dissidents.
4: The Cuban missile crisis.
5:???
[/QUOTE]
- PROFIT!
I saw this movie back when. Dead political leader, good photography, same old same old.
[QUOTE=lalenin]
I had to come back and add to my previous response. This post from you shows an attitude that I just don’t get, and I see it all the time. I’ll have a conversation with someone about some of the abuses in Cuba and their response, like yours, will be along the lines of “it’s not as bad as others”. Well fuck them! And fuck you too, why not hate all the sons of bitches equally?
Who gave you the right to control the scale of badness where you weigh the merits of dictators against your standard and decide that one is not as bad as the other? All forms of dictatorship are bad, all forms of government abuse are bad, all dictators should die, the sooner the better, and all of those who say one dictator is not as bad as another should go live in that country and see how they like it.
[/QUOTE]
Because for some people, words speak louder than actions.
Dictators like Castro sing praises to the working class and to those who have been selected to represent working class heroes and/or heroes of the revolution, either directly to their captive audience or through their goons who enforce worshipful behaviour towards the “cause”, whatever that may be.
Actions, such as those described in, for example:
These actions mean nothing to those who admire words and ideologies.
For that kind of person, Castro’s heart is in the right place, and that’s all that matters.
Lalenin, thanks for your contributions. It’s good to see some actual first-hand knowledge injected into an ivory tower of mindless ignorance. For the extreme left, Castro is the darling of communist dictators — a central planner who squashes everyone down to a common level of destitution and squalor. In other words, their ideal.
OK, Lib, you got us. We’re evil. Can’t help it, just no damn good.
Still, back to the OP… Fidel seems to just hang on in an act of ultimate stubborn contraryness, just so that he can outlast as many as possible of those who he shoved off of power – so nobody of HIS generation will be in a condition to dance in the streets of Miami…