NationStates Jolt Archive

(Inspired by the discussion in the Franco thread.) A man capable of good:

"Cuban social policy is characterized by its emphasis on universal coverage and reach for all programs and for all educational, health, and social benefits. These are seen as part of a "social wage" that workers accrue in addition to their monetary wage."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfeature/sf_views_uriarte.html

And evil:

"Groups such as homosexuals were locked up in concentration camps in the 1960s, where they were subject to medical-political "re-education".[53] Castro's admiring description of rural life in Cuba ("in the country, there are no homosexuals"[54]) reflected the idea of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence, and he denounced "maricones" (faggots) as "agents of imperialism".[55] Castro stated that "homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people".[56]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro



What is NSG's opinion of him?

He's like your crazy old uncle, with some crazy ideas (that just might work!), but he's running a country...

Ambivalent. Some things I really like, some I really hate, some things I'm meh about...

I prefer the fatigues to the track suit.

Still not going to trade with him.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

Which other side? Talk straight, mortal!

A total douchebag, but we still shouldn't have ever tried to overthrow him, or imposed sanctions, or even broken off diplomatic relations.

*walks away*

Still not going to trade with him.

Could you add a subject to that sentence?

Could you add a subject to that sentence?

We still are not going to trade with him.

We still are not going to trade with him.

Why not?

Why not?

Because he has not kissed our ass.

Oh, and his welfare/health/education, etc. policies still do not justify him. After all, the Scandinavian countries have achieved the same thing, without gulags, executions without trial (commonplace in the early years), a police state, etc.

Why not?

greed and death is not the President, so why ask him?

greed and death is not the President,

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, money is always President.

Another thing about Castro: He's a hypocrite. It's highly amusing, in a sick way, that the self-described anti-imperialist sent troops to help Ethiopia fight Eritrean secessionists fighting for independence from Ethiopian imperialism. Also, he supported the (imperialist) invasion of Czechoslovakia by the U.S.S.R. And his meddling in lots of other countries' affairs (although admittedly not as often, or as much, as the U.S.) while claiming to be an anti-imperialist, only further underscores his hypocrisy.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, money is always President.

And exactly how much President do you have? :tongue:

I like many things about Castro. Other things I am not fond of.

And exactly how much President do you have? :tongue:

I am the spirit of greed I am every head of state.

Which other side? Talk straight, mortal!

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side

My thoughts on people from places like US, UK, etc. who want to live in Cuba.

I am the spirit of greed I am every head of state.
:confused:

But by your previous admission, you are merely a cuckoo jerk who is not a jerk offline.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side

My thoughts on people from places like US, UK, etc. who want to live in Cuba.

I dont recall anyone in this thread saying they want to live in Cuba, so isnt that a bit...random?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/the_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side

My thoughts on people from places like US, UK, etc. who want to live in Cuba.

I do not want to live there, and I doubt many here do.

greed and death is not the President, so why ask him?

An attempt to get the conversation rolling.

Castro is a complex person, and it would help to have some sort of focus for the discussion. Many of the reasons for the embargo have to do with El Comandante, so that could be a good starting point for analysing viewpoints of castro.

He's just what you said, some good, some bad.

His takeover of the country was probably for the good of Cuba. The Batista dictatorship was at least as brutal, without the positive aspects of Castro's, and effective control was in the hands of the American mob. Cuba's has been one of the few Communist states that has actually attempted to make good on the promise that communism will lead to a better life for the working class; whether or not he has succeeded is a matter of opinion.

Castro's opinions on gays are not unusual in a man of his age; they're more or less the same opinions you would have heard from many ordinary people in the 1950s and early '60s. It took the forcible "breaking out" of the Gay scene in the 1970s that started to change attitudes, and such popular movements are (ironically) anathema to entrenched communists. Thus, unlike the West, Castro hasn't changed with the times.

I have respect for the man, but I feel his time - and the time for the Cuban communist dictatorship - will soon be at an end.

I dont recall anyone in this thread saying they want to live in Cuba, so isnt that a bit...random?

No, because the Ox is slow, but earth is patient--sometimes we have difficulty seeing the forest for the trees.

He's just what you said, some good, some bad.

His takeover of the country was probably for the good of Cuba. The Batista dictatorship was at least as brutal, without the positive aspects of Castro's, and effective control was in the hands of the American mob. Cuba's has been one of the few Communist states that has actually attempted to make good on the promise that communism will lead to a better life for the working class; whether or not he has succeeded is a matter of opinion.

Probably.

Castro's opinions on gays are not unusual in a man of his age; they're more or less the same opinions you would have heard from many ordinary people in the 1950s and early '60s. It took the forcible "breaking out" of the Gay scene in the 1970s that started to change attitudes, and such popular movements are (ironically) anathema to entrenched communists. Thus, unlike the West, Castro hasn't changed with the times.


I doubt his opinions offended persons as much as his building of concentration camps to rid Cuba of homosexuality.

I'm rabidly anti-communist, and I hate dictatorships, but I've always had a soft spot for Castro. No idea why.

I doubt his opinions offended persons as much as his building of concentration camps to rid Cuba of homosexuality.

True. But considering many states in the US jailed people for homosexuality (or maintained the laws to do so) into the 2000's, Castro's actions can be seen as only a matter of a larger scale.

I dont recall anyone in this thread saying they want to live in Cuba, so isnt that a bit...random?
Yeah. I guess most of my posts are a bit random. I hope it doesn't piss people off.

I do not want to live there, and I doubt many here do.
Yeah, most of the NSG forum members seem relatively sensible. That said, I once worked with someone who named her son after Fidel Castro!

(Inspired by the discussion in the Franco thread.) A man capable of good:

"Cuban social policy is characterized by its emphasis on universal coverage and reach for all programs and for all educational, health, and social benefits. These are seen as part of a "social wage" that workers accrue in addition to their monetary wage."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfeature/sf_views_uriarte.html

And evil:

"Groups such as homosexuals were locked up in concentration camps in the 1960s, where they were subject to medical-political "re-education".[53] Castro's admiring description of rural life in Cuba ("in the country, there are no homosexuals"[54]) reflected the idea of homosexuality as bourgeois decadence, and he denounced "maricones" (faggots) as "agents of imperialism".[55] Castro stated that "homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people".[56]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro



What is NSG's opinion of him?

Let's add to the evil list shall we:

At least el Presidente radically improved health care with the money the Soviet Union gave him; that is not something your average dictator would do.

Yes, and also if one comes to think that Cuba's main problem was imposed by the US: yes, the embargo. Lift that and Cuba can prosper like any other nation.

And I can regularly buy some damned fine cigars.

http://www.absolutecigars.com/images/Cigars/Cohiba-Siglo-II-cuban-cigars_360.jpg

Honestly, why are we still angry at Castro? and Cuba in general?

Habit.

Really, I'd like to see an end to trade embargoes, favored nation trade status, and all other trade treaty entanglements of all sorts.

I hate to break up the pro-Castro wank fest, but let me show exaxtly why Castro's regime is bad, ok . (I swear, only on NSG :rolleyes: )

Let's talk about human rights:

The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[91]

Cuba is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its constitution has a section outlining the "fundamental rights, duties and guarantees" of the Cuban people.[1] However, possessing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a punishable and the regime destroys copies of it.[2]

Dissidents complain of harassment and torture.[5] Educational and cultural policy is based on Marxist ideology by law,[6] and The Code for Children, Youth and Family states that a parent who teaches ideas contrary to communism can be sentenced to three years in prison.[6] Freedom of assembly is severely restricted in Cuba. No independent labor unions are allowed.[3] Government maintains tight control of religion.[3] There is no due process; the judicial system is constitutionally subordinate to the government.[3] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is often denied.[7][8] Even discussing escaping carries a six-month prison sentence.[8] Those with permission to leave for authorized reason are required to leave children in Cuba, who are kept as hostages to prevent people fleeing.[7][8]

"The government also imprisons or orders the surveillance of individuals who have committed no illegal act, relying upon provisions that penalize “dangerousness” (estado peligroso) and allow for “official warning” (advertencia oficial)."[6]

The Cuban constitution says that free speech is allowed "in keeping with the objectives of socialist society" and that artistic creation is allowed "as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution".

- in other words, "you're allowed to write and say whatever you wish, as long as it's in line with the socialist party agenda." -

Cuba's ranking was on the bottom of the Press Freedom Index 2008 compiled by the Reporters Without Borders (RWB).[9] RWB states that Cuba is "the second biggest prison in the world for journalists" after the People's Republic of China.[37] Cuba was named one of the ten most censored countries in the world by the Committee to Protect Journalists.[38]

Books, newspapers, radio channels, television channels, movies and music are censored.

Human rights group Amnesty International assert that the universal state ownership of the media means that freedom of expression is restricted. Thus the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is restricted by the lack of means of mass communication falling outside state control.[40] Human Rights Watch states: "Refusing to recognize human rights monitoring as a legitimate activity, the government denies legal status to local human rights groups.


Here's a good example:

In 1960, Armando Valladares was working at the Cuban Postal Savings Bank when agents of the Ministry of Communications handed him a card bearing a communist slogan and told him to put it on his worktable. The 23-year-old Valladares refused. Astonished, the agents asked him if he had anything against Castro. Valladares answered that if Castro was a communist, he did. Valladares was convicted on a charge of placing bombs in public places and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

According to the Human Rights Watch, Castro constructed a "repressive machinery" which continues to deprive Cubans of their basic rights.[165]

Castro created a significant system of censorship; Cuba had the fourth worst system out of 174 countries on the 2008 Press Freedom Index.[166] The few Cubans with official permissions to access Internet face Internet surveillance; the vast majority of Cubans face five-year prison sentences for connecting to Internet.[167]

The authorities have called Internet "the great disease of 21st century".[99] As a result of computer ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[100]

In their book, Corruption in Cuba, Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López Servando state that Castro "institutionalized" corruption and that "Castro's state-run monopolies, cronyism, and lack of accountability have made Cuba one of the world's most corrupt states".[168] Servando Gonzalez, in The Secret Fidel Castro, calls Castro a "corrupt tyrant".[169]

In 1959, according to Gonzalez, Castro established "Fidel's checking account", from which he could draw funds as he pleased.[169] The "Comandante's reserves" were created in 1970, from which Castro allegedly "provided gifts to many of his cronies, both home and abroad".[169] Gonzalez asserts that Comandante's reserves have been linked to counterfeiting business empires and money laundering.[169]
As early as 1968, a once-close friend of Castro's wrote that Castro had huge accounts in Swiss banks.[169] Castro's secretary was allegedly seen using Zurich banks.[169] Gonzalez believes that Cuba's paucity of trade with Switzerland contrasts oddly with the National Office of Cuba's relatively large office in Zurich.[169] Castro has denied having a bank account abroad with even a dollar in it.[170]

. . . I have no problem with Swiss bank accounts, but it looks ridiculous for a communist revolutionary preaching state-sponsored equality to have one . . .

A KGB officer, Alexei Novikov, stated that Castro's personal life, like the lives of the rest of the Communist elite, is "shrouded under an impenetrable veil of secrecy". Among other things, he asserted that Castro has a personal guard of more than 9700 men and three luxurious yachts.[169]

Shall I go on? I love when Cuba apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

True. But considering many states in the US jailed people for homosexuality (or maintained the laws to do so) into the 2000's, Castro's actions can be seen as only a matter of a larger scale.

I believe we condemn the jailing of homosexuals. I also think that it is not comparable to torture and "re-education".

I just wonder if he liked Bill Clinton's idea, and started dipping his cigar into interns too. I mean that literally btw. You think they'd be Merkin cigars? I figured that was part of the thrill.

Shall I go on? I love when Cuba apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

And I love when Pinochet (a much worse dictator IMO) apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

I just wonder if he liked Bill Clinton's idea, and started dipping his cigar into interns too. I mean that literally btw.

Remember that game, Political Capital (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/29098)? There is a picture of a smoking cigar on the "Have an Affair with an Intern: No effect" space . :D

OK:

1) Castro's policies are indeed succesful, healthcare is universal, free, and quite competitive because it relies on an effective plan of preventive medicine and public health. To explain in more detail, I would need a different topic on its own, but largely, it works. The quality of the education is not that good, but at least then again, it is free and universal. However, and here comes the spiky point, how much of said policies are due to Castro's actions, and how much of them are just due to a pair of really competent health and education ministers? Yet, we have to realize that only on a steta strong socialist leaning state these policies were possible.

2) Fidel Castro crushed his opponents in the first years, actually, some people say that he convinced Ernesto Guevara to go to Bolivia without support so he could be killed. Anyway, the oppression, and the killings, and the torture and the persecutions are entirely his fault.

3) Cuba, the one not for the tourists, but for people, is a little bit better than a hellhole, for the standards of most people here. I have been there, and not staying in a resort or tourist Hotel in Copacabana. Prostitution is an issue, and by an issue I don't mean it is legal or free, but otherwise, you see many young girls (and boys) going into prostitution because they have nothing else to do to live for. When you see fathers pimping their girls, or boys with learning disabilities as buttcandy for the foreigners you realize something is wrong there.

Some people begged me to give them my toothpaste or my toilet paper because they didn't have any. That's harsh. I met cuban taxi drivers who were lawyers, and ice cream vendors who were PhD in Literature. Sound weird, right? How much of it is fault of the american embargo and which part is fault of the cuban administration, it depends...

4) However, cuban people is, at large, happy, as least that is how they define themselves. How much of that happiness comes from the conformism of not knowing any other kind of life, or it is truly happiness, it depends. Usually, most cubans I know that have been abroad, do not want to go back. Including the ones sent by Fidel to Venezuela, who are supposed to be hardcore socialists.

And if you ask most of them, they have a good amount of respect for Castro, because they know he was the only guy brave enough to stop the depredations of the americans, who under Batista were the same oppressors, but they didn't even care about the lives they destroyed.

Better than Batista, you prop up that kind of person you bring about Castro. Stop doing stupid foreign policy and then whining about the result.

And I love when Pinochet (a much worse dictator IMO) apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

While nothing TAI said was a lie, it is amusing to witness such transparent hypocrisy such as supporting Pinochet while condemning Castro.

TAI talking about human rights as if he actually cares about them...that's laughable. His beef is economic. You can do what you like, teach dogs to rape women, electrocute their sons, disappear their husbands, brothers and fathers....as long as you did it in the name of fighting socialism.

My favorite thing about Castro is that not only can you attack his regime's ongoing ridicuous violations of human rights, but you can attack his shitty economic policy. The fact that they have a good healthcare system and an ok education system (I say ok because it's good that it exists and it's quite well funded compared to alot of Latin America, I say bad because it's illegal to teach anything other than marxist propaganda) is only going to benefit them once the regime collapses, capitalism takes over and investment will really take advantage (in a good way) of the healthy, educated population.

So yeah, the best thing about castro's 'best' policies are that it's going to be helpful to creating a resource rich country with an educated populace that will be ripe for capital investment.

Here's one of my favorite things ever stated about Castro's Cuba:

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101166.html

Let's add to the evil list shall we:









I hate to break up the pro-Castro wank fest, but let me show exaxtly why Castro's regime is bad, ok . (I swear, only on NSG :rolleyes: )

Let's talk about human rights:











- in other words, "you're allowed to write and say whatever you wish, as long as it's in line with the socialist party agenda." -






Here's a good example:










As early as 1968, a once-close friend of Castro's wrote that Castro had huge accounts in Swiss banks.[169] Castro's secretary was allegedly seen using Zurich banks.[169] Gonzalez believes that Cuba's paucity of trade with Switzerland contrasts oddly with the National Office of Cuba's relatively large office in Zurich.[169] Castro has denied having a bank account abroad with even a dollar in it.[170]

. . . I have no problem with Swiss bank accounts, but it looks ridiculous for a communist revolutionary preaching state-sponsored equality to have one . . .



Shall I go on? I love when Cuba apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

I don't think anyone here lied about anything actually; that's a pretty heavy term to use.

I don't have any illusions about Castro. He's a dictator; he's done a lot of bad stuff; all up it would be better if Cuba had a democratic government.

But remember what Cuba had BEFORE Castro. A series of increasingly repressive regimes, some pseudo-sanctioned by fixed elections, most not. A culture of moneyed externals buying what they wanted and treating the locals as dirt. A government that fundamentally existed to rip off the people for their own aggrandizement - everything that was wrong in the West, was present in Cuba.

Castro stopped that. Whatever else, he stopped that. And he did it without the kind of horrors that we saw in Cambodia, Stalinist USSR or Pinochet's Chile.

Give the devil his due. Castro did what he did, and not all of it was bad.

TAI talking about human rights as if he actually cares about them...that's laughable. His beef is economic. You can do what you like, teach dogs to rape women, electrocute their sons, disappear their husbands, brothers and fathers....as long as you did it in the name of fighting socialism.

True words them.

I think a more important question would be: what do the Cubans think of Castro?

SNIP

Because the embargo has nothing to do with Cuba's poverty?

I think a more important question would be: what do the Cubans think of Castro?

The ones living in Cuba love him, the ones living the United States hate him.

While nothing TAI said was a lie, it is amusing to witness such transparent hypocrisy such as supporting Pinochet while condemning Castro.

And I love when Pinochet (a much worse dictator IMO) apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

The point is that many people here, the same people who say "I don't mind Castro." or "There are some things I like about Castro, there's some things I dislike. . . " and in general don't really take a negative tone about how, are the first ones to claim how much they loathe President Bush, for example, due to his [percieved] crony economic policies, ideologically based education system (pro-religion/anti-science), disregard for human rights and disregard for the democratic process.

Every single bad thing about Bush pales in comparison to a real dicator who leads one of the most repressed regimes in the world. Who leads a country where it's even illegal to pocess a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Where cryon economic policy REALLY exists. Where failed economic policy has literally left a country in extreme poverty. Where the average was was around $16.70 per month, with a pension of $9. Where REAL [marxist] ideological indocrination in the school system exists.

That is the problem here. . . You lose any credit of opposition to Bush's policies when you don't mind Castro. (Unless you're a Marxist, obviously . . . but then there's no help for you anyway)

TAI talking about human rights as if he actually cares about them...that's laughable. His beef is economic. You can do what you like, teach dogs to rape women, electrocute their sons, disappear their husbands, brothers and fathers....as long as you did it in the name of fighting socialism.
Well now that I've made clear the human rights violations, let's do talk economic policy. Good idea.

Paramount issues have been state salaries failing to meet personal needs under the state rationing system chronically plagued with shortages. As the variety and quantity of available rationed goods declined, Cubans increasingly turned to the black market to obtain basic food, clothing, household, and health amenities. The informal sector is characterized by what many Cubans call sociolismo. Corruption is common.[15] Preferential treatment exists for those who are members of the Communist Party or who hold positions of power within the government.[16] Access to transportation, work, housing, university education and better health care are a function of status within the government or the Communist Party.[17]

As a result of inefficient state-run agriculture, Cuba imports up to 80% of its food.[42] After coming to power, Raúl Castro, Fidel Castro's brother, has ridiculed the bureaucracy that shackles the agriculture sector.[42]

Before 1959, Cuba boasted as many cattle as people. Today meat is so scarce that it is a crime to kill and eat a cow.[43] Cuban people even suffered from starvation during the Special Period.


When Argentinean pensioners protesters over 450 dollar a month pensions, Cuban pensioners had to survive on only a few dollars a month.[49] Cuban pensions are among the smallest in the Western hemisphere at $9.50 after a 2009 reform, when Raul Castro increased minimum pensions by 2 dollars to recompense for those who have "dedicated a great part of their lives to working... and who remain firm in defence of socialism".[51]

And if you want to look at reasons why Cuba's economic sucks so much socialist sack, look at the way they treat business, and this is an improvement and only since 1993!

Havana in 1993 legalized self-employment for some 150 occupations. The government tightly controls the small private sector, which has fluctuated in size from 150,000 to 209,000, by regulating and taxing it. For example, owners of small private restaurants (paladares) can seat no more than 12 people[54]

Look at how horrible Cuba stands:

The 2008 Index of Economic Freedom Report ranks Cuba 156 out of 157 nations surveyed.

The ones living in Cuba love him, the ones living the United States hate him.

Well, given that Cuba is one of the few, stable nations (not in a civil war, or experiencing ethnic cleansing or whatever) where literally millions of people risk death in order to flee from, I'd say a good amount of Cubans are willing to risk death over living under Castro. That's pretty important. Also, most Cubans, and I do mean most, are denied free information (internet..tv, whatever) that is not government propaganda, so it would be difficult for a common person to get all the details about how fucked up Castro's government is.

Remember, it's illegal to leave the country.

It's also quite impossible to know Cuban attitudes towards Castro using polls, given that that would be illegal in Cuba, domestically. And just forget about foreign reporters, Cuba is a no-go area for them.

The ones living in Cuba love him,
Source. Now.

Better than Batista, you prop up that kind of person you bring about Castro. Stop doing stupid foreign policy and then whining about the result.

Um, you do know that the U.S imposed on arms embargo on Batista's government, right?

Source. Now.

The only available sources are anecdotal evidence and Cuban government records; it is unlikely that either would convince you.

Because the embargo has nothing to do with Cuba's poverty?

Something, but not everything.

Give the devil his due. Castro did what he did, and not all of it was bad.

Castro's the devil? O.o

anecdotal evidence and Cuban government records
:D Who the fuck would accept that? "Castro conducted a poll today and found out that his people love him." Fact. :D

ahahahhahahhahahhahaha


Oh my gosh, I'm really laughing out loud.

The only available sources are anecdotal evidence and Cuban government records; it is unlikely that either would convince you.

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Please, I know we haven't been seeing eye to eye in recent debates, but please! - tell me you also enjoyed at the very least a slight giggle from that.

...where literally millions of people risk death in order to flee from....

Source. Now.

Please, I know we haven't been seeing eye to eye in recent debates, but please! - tell me you also enjoyed at the very least a slight giggle from that.

Oh, it was more than a slight one. ;)

Yes, those are all deplorable. But they dont justify a continued (and ineffective) trade embargo when we regularly trade with countries who do far worse. Nor does it counter any of the good he has actually done, like using Soviet money to improve health care.
While I support having the embargo during the Cold War, I also support lifting it now. It's an anachronism and anyway, private capital investment and a build up of the free-market is pivital in weakening the power of the state. . . Capitalism will kill Communism in Cuba, we just haven't been letting it for the best 15 or so years. ;)

Unlike many Communist leaders, Castro actually tries to stick to some of the principles.
Yes, "I swear, on the red bible, that we will all suffer equally and share our poverty! Except me and close party-members, who will become ridiculously wealthy!"

Compared to Pinochet he's good as gold, you fucking hypocrite.
Really? Fidel Castro is done ruling Cuba and Pinochet is done ruling Chile. Let's compare Chile and Cuba, shall we ;)

TAI, I hate Castro's guts, but I still think the U.S. should have diplomatic relations with Cuba and trade with Cuba.
See above, I don't disagree.

Apply all this crap to your own self. You're a Pinochet apologist so...rolleyes:

Oh, and have you been to Cuba? Do you have experience of the country first hand? Or this is just your biased conclusions on the subject? Because I have first hand experience of the country, I've been there, and this you quoted is, once again, a load of crap.
I haven't been to North Korea either. Am I a biased liar by telling you that it is, like Cuba, an unfree, dictatorial, economically ruined, censored regime? No, because thanks to freedom of information, I can find that out without actually going there.

where literally millions of people risk death in order to flee from

http://names.mongabay.com/ancestry/Cuban.html

Considering there are barely a million Cubans in the US, and this includes their children and families they started once they got here, I find the claim that 'literally millions' risk death in order to leave Cuba suspect.

Source. Now.

Emigration from Cuba (sometimes referred to as 'the Cuban exodus') in the last half century has led more than two million Cubans of all social classes to the United States,[130] and to Spain, Mexico, Canada, Sweden, and other countries.
They risk everything leaving, from death in the journey, to enprisonment for being caught trying to leave the island.

From 1959 through 1993, some 1.2 million Cubans (about 10% of the current population) left the island for the United States [16], often by sea in small boats and fragile rafts.

And that's only up until 93.

Let's look at what these Cubans risk, fleeing their oppressive communist government, and what the government does to them if they are caught:

On July 13, 1994, 72 Cubans attempted to leave the Island on a World War II era tugboat named the 13 de Marzo. In an attempt by the Cuban Navy to stop the tugboat, patrol boats were sent out to intercept the tug. Crewmen and survivors reported that the interception vessels rammed the tugboat and sprayed its passengers with high pressure fire hoses, sweeping many overboard. A total of 41 men, women and children drowned after being swept off the tug’s deck, 11 of these were children under the age of 12.

What a paradise. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

...
Yes, "I swear, on the red bible, that we will all suffer equally and share our poverty! Except me and close party-members, who will become ridiculously wealthy!"

Yes. Castro is wealthy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7028503.stm), I'm sure.

Really? Fidel Castro is done ruling Cuba and Pinochet is done ruling Chile. Let's compare Chile and Cuba, shall we ;)

Yes, let's. The Chileans got rid of Pinochet as soon as they could. The Cubans have yet to do so. I wonder why.

I haven't been to North Korea either. Am I a biased liar by telling you that it is, like Cuba, an unfree, dictatorial, economically ruined, censored regime? No, because thanks to freedom of information, I can find that out without actually going there.

And by actually going there, I can tell that you are a biased liar. Isn't objective reality wonderful!

Oh, it was more than a slight one. ;)
Excellent. :p

Yes. Castro is wealthy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7028503.stm), I'm sure.
Uh, he is. That link has nothing to do with your statement of "Castro is wealthy, I'm sure."

A KGB officer, Alexei Novikov, stated that Castro's personal life, like the lives of the rest of the Communist elite, is "shrouded under an impenetrable veil of secrecy". Among other things, he asserted that Castro has a personal guard of more than 9700 men and three luxurious yachts.[169]

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, unless you are a communist revolutionary who fought a war to bring equality to your power, and you are living wealthy while they make almost shit.
Yes, let's. The Chileans got rid of Pinochet as soon as they could. The Cubans have yet to do so. I wonder why.
Um, because Pinochet reinstated democracy and Castro didn't, obviously. You're making this too easy. :p

And by actually going there, I can tell that you are a biased liar. Isn't objective reality wonderful!
Nope, doesn't count. I don't trust your opinion, and I don't believe that you've been there. Since it's the internet, you have no way to prove it. I'll use the facts that NGO's provide instead. Oh, and by the way, if you place so much weight on anectdotal evidence, Aelosia also has been there. Are you calling her a liar or could it be possible that you are making outragous claims about a hypothetical Cuba that doesn't exist in order to try (unsucessfully) to not lose this debate so badly? I noticed not many, if any, commented on this:

OK:

1) Castro's policies are indeed succesful, healthcare is universal, free, and quite competitive because it relies on an effective plan of preventive medicine and public health. To explain in more detail, I would need a different topic on its own, but largely, it works. The quality of the education is not that good, but at least then again, it is free and universal. However, and here comes the spiky point, how much of said policies are due to Castro's actions, and how much of them are just due to a pair of really competent health and education ministers? Yet, we have to realize that only on a steta strong socialist leaning state these policies were possible.

2) Fidel Castro crushed his opponents in the first years, actually, some people say that he convinced Ernesto Guevara to go to Bolivia without support so he could be killed. Anyway, the oppression, and the killings, and the torture and the persecutions are entirely his fault.

3) Cuba, the one not for the tourists, but for people, is a little bit better than a hellhole, for the standards of most people here. I have been there, and not staying in a resort or tourist Hotel in Copacabana. Prostitution is an issue, and by an issue I don't mean it is legal or free, but otherwise, you see many young girls (and boys) going into prostitution because they have nothing else to do to live for. When you see fathers pimping their girls, or boys with learning disabilities as buttcandy for the foreigners you realize something is wrong there.

Some people begged me to give them my toothpaste or my toilet paper because they didn't have any. That's harsh. I met cuban taxi drivers who were lawyers, and ice cream vendors who were PhD in Literature. Sound weird, right? How much of it is fault of the american embargo and which part is fault of the cuban administration, it depends...

4) However, cuban people is, at large, happy, as least that is how they define themselves. How much of that happiness comes from the conformism of not knowing any other kind of life, or it is truly happiness, it depends. Usually, most cubans I know that have been abroad, do not want to go back. Including the ones sent by Fidel to Venezuela, who are supposed to be hardcore socialists.

And if you ask most of them, they have a good amount of respect for Castro, because they know he was the only guy brave enough to stop the depredations of the americans, who under Batista were the same oppressors, but they didn't even care about the lives they destroyed.

They risk everything leaving, from death in the journey, to enprisonment for being caught trying to leave the island.

And that's only up until 93.

Let's look at what these Cubans risk, fleeing their oppressive communist government, and what the government does to them if they are caught:

What a paradise. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba

The number of people leaving does not equal the number of people who risk death. This is obvious when one reads the parts of the wiki article that you left out.

While the sinking of the "13 de Marzo" tugboat was a horrible act, this does not provide evidence that this is typical of the Cuban emigre experience.

Um, you do know that the U.S imposed on arms embargo on Batista's government, right?

Eventually, and then they protested about Batista actually using the army units they had trained and equipped. Then the ambassador had to go...

Yes, let's. The Chileans got rid of Pinochet as soon as they could. The Cubans have yet to do so. I wonder why.

As bad as Pinochet was, at least he allowed himself to be voted out of office in a free and fair election. Castro never has. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Also, a rhetorical question: How many people would be less critical of Pinochet if the latter had provided free healthcare, education, welfare, etc. of the same sort Cuba has?

The number of people leaving does not equal the number of people who risk death. This is obvious when one reads the parts of the wiki article that you left out.

People risk death when they swim across to the U.S. However, I'll concede, if it makes you feel better, than you can use "hundreds of thousands risk death" instead of millions.

Uh, he is. That link has nothing to do with your statement of "Castro is wealthy, I'm sure."

A KGB officer, Alexei Novikov, stated that Castro's personal life, like the lives of the rest of the Communist elite, is "shrouded under an impenetrable veil of secrecy". Among other things, he asserted that Castro has a personal guard of more than 9700 men and three luxurious yachts.[169]

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy, unless you are a communist revolutionary who fought a war to bring equality to your power, and you are living wealthy while they make almost shit.

So, do you always believe uncorroborated reports from single KGB agents? Or just when they suit you?

Nice link, though, eh?

Um, because Pinochet reinstated democracy and Castro didn't, obviously. You're making this too easy. :p

Close, but wrong. Pinochet didn't institute democracy, the Chilean people did. If it had been Pinochet who had been the great liberator, don't you think the Chileans would have elected him or his people to the Presidency at least once since they took back the right to vote?

So, why haven't the Cubans done something similar?

Nope, doesn't count. I don't trust your opinion, and I don't believe that you've been there. Since it's the internet, you have no way to prove it. I'll use the facts that NGO's provide instead. Oh, and by the way, if you place so much weight on anectdotal evidence, Aelosia also has been there. Are you calling her a liar or could it be possible that you are making outragous claims about a hypothetical Cuba that doesn't exist in order to try (unsucessfully) to not lose this debate so badly? I noticed not many, if any, commented on this:

You seem to be under the impression that my observations were somehow different than Aelosia's. How odd. It is by actually going there that I know her description is realistic and touches on the complexities of modern Cuban life, while your description of Cuba as "an unfree, dictatorial, economically ruined, censored regime" is simplistic hyperbole.

Close, but wrong. Pinochet didn't institute democracy, the Chilean people did. If it had been Pinochet who had been the great liberator, don't you think the Chileans would have elected him or his people to the Presidency at least once since they took back the right to vote?

So, why haven't the Cubans done something similar?

When was the last time Castro held a plebiscite on his rule? Name the date. I'll wait.

As bad as Pinochet was, at least he allowed himself to be voted out of office in a free and fair election. Castro never has. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Are you unaware of how Pinochet stacked the senate in his favour, so that even if everyone voted against him, he could still exercise power? And that the congress had to amend the constitution so that they could start going after the very people that oppressed them? I would imagine you were, but no longer are.

You see, obtuseness may have some value.

It also brings me back to the question no one has answered. If Castro is so bad, why haven't the Cubans revolted or somehow gotten rid of him?

Also, a rhetorical question: How many people would be less critical of Pinochet if the latter had provided free healthcare, education, welfare, etc. of the same sort Cuba has?

He would not have been Pinochet.

People risk death when they swim across to the U.S. However, I'll concede, if it makes you feel better, than you can use "hundreds of thousands risk death" instead of millions.

No. I will not accept your concession. Because now you need evidence for 'hundreds of thousands'.

Buck up, TAI! Your profs will think you have amazing research skills.

So, do you always believe uncorroborated reports from single KGB agents? Or just when they suit you?
Is Castro not way richer than the average way poor Cuban, then?



Close, but wrong. Pinochet didn't institute democracy, the Chilean people did. If it had been Pinochet who had been the great liberator, don't you think the Chileans would have elected him or his people to the Presidency at least once since they took back the right to vote?
Because a majority of about 10% wanted someone fresh. He had been leading since the early 70's. Pinochet reinstituted democracy. Do not lie. Cubans have not been able to vote Castro out of power because he hasn't let them, at all. Pinochet let his people vote him out of power. You are making yourself look ridiculous by denying this reality.


"an unfree, dictatorial, economically ruined, censored regime" is simplistic hyperbole.
I have backed that up showing quotes, notably from NGOs on political and economic freedom, cencorship and human rights throughout this thread.

Now, prove to me which one of those is a lie. Is Cuba free? Is Cuba not dictatorial? Is Cuba not economically ruined? Is Cuban society not censored?

You didn't by any chance go to school somewhere where they brainwashed you with marxist propaganda, did you?

Another thing about Castro: He's a hypocrite. It's highly amusing, in a sick way, that the self-described anti-imperialist sent troops to help Ethiopia fight Eritrean secessionists fighting for independence from Ethiopian imperialism. Also, he supported the (imperialist) invasion of Czechoslovakia by the U.S.S.R. And his meddling in lots of other countries' affairs (although admittedly not as often, or as much, as the U.S.) while claiming to be an anti-imperialist, only further underscores his hypocrisy.

He's a mixed bag, like anyone else. On one hand, I like some of the social programs he's instated in Cuba. On the other hand, the gulags and meddling in extranational affairs is not. Good point about the vague stance on imperialism too.

EDIT: The bad most definitely outweighs the good he's done.

:confused:

But by your previous admission, you are merely a cuckoo jerk who is not a jerk offline.

So your saying Obama is a jerk then?

:D Who the fuck would accept that? "Castro conducted a poll today and found out that his people love him." Fact. :D

ahahahhahahhahahhahaha


Oh my gosh, I'm really laughing out loud.

:p Sorry. You asked how happy the Cuban people were, and those are the only two sources available. Do not blame me.

So your saying Obama is a jerk then?

Except for Jimmy Carter, I thought all Presidents were.

:p Sorry. You asked how happy the Cuban people were, and those are the only two sources available. Do not blame me.

When I am dictator of the US I will conduct similar polls.

Is Castro not way richer than the average way poor Cuban, then?

I have no idea, as I have yet to see any credible evidence.

Pinochet reinstituted democracy. Do not lie.

What exactly was the lie I made?

Cubans have not been able to vote Castro out of power because he hasn't let them, at all. Pinochet let his people vote him out of power. You are making yourself look ridiculous by denying this reality.

I see the problem.

Why haven't the Cubans revolted? Why is there currently no revolutionary movement? Why did the Bay of Pigs invasion fail? Why hasn't the CIA managed to topple his government?

Either you are pretending that Castro is really that powerful, or you are deliberately ignoring the fact that none of these things can succeed (or could have succeeded) unless there was some widespread discontent with his government. Why does that widespread discontent not exist?

I have backed that up showing quotes, notably from NGOs on political and economic freedom, cencorship and human rights throughout this thread.

Um, no. You copy and pasted a wiki article, and linked to some washington post editorial.

Now, prove to me which one of those is a lie. Is Cuba free?

Cuba is more free than you depict.

Is Cuba not dictatorial?

It is less dictatorial than you depict.

Is Cuba not economically ruined?

Again, not as much as you depict.

Is Cuban society not censored?

Not as much as you would have us believe.

If you are curious as to the reality, you should reread Aelosia's post.

When I am dictator of the US I will conduct similar polls.

You will never be dictator: I will save the people by assuming the title of Emperor. I will then use my army to destroy the superfluous branches, then I will have you executed.

You will never be dictator: I will save the people by assuming the title of Emperor. I will then use my army to destroy the superfluous branches, then I will have you executed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but once I reclaim the thrones of Europe as is my birthright, I'm gonna gear up to retake our colonies in the west! :p

You may leave unharmed.

You will never be dictator: I will save the people by assuming the title of Emperor. I will then use my army to destroy the superfluous branches, then I will have you executed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but once I reclaim the thrones of Europe as is my birthright, I'm gonna gear up to retake our colonies in the west! :p

You may leave unharmed.

NO NO NO the people with Tin foil on their heads say I am clearly destined to rule.

Fidel Castro may have been a Stalinist dictator, but he's one of the few I can think of that actually found the People's well-being more important than his Military.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but once I reclaim the thrones of Europe as is my birthright, I'm gonna gear up to retake our colonies in the west! :p

http://www.rogerwendell.com/images/military/global_distribution_of_military_expenditures.jpg

Don't even fuckin' think about it, or we'll hand ya yow wussy universal healthcare and poverty-relief ass. :sniper:

NO NO NO the people with Tin foil on their heads say I am clearly destined to rule.

And what are your genealogical qualifications? I'd be more than happy to show you mine.

http://www.rogerwendell.com/images/military/global_distribution_of_military_expenditures.jpg

Don't even fuckin' think about it, or we'll hand ya yow wussy universal healthcare and poverty-relief ass. :sniper:

Reference my post immediately previous.

And what are your genealogical qualifications? I'd be more than happy to show you mine.

Picked by the four tinfoiled(wise) men. they were lead to my birth by a star.
So my genealogical qualifications is Son of God.

[QUOTE]=The Atlantian islands;14652746]Uh, he is. That link has nothing to
Um, because Pinochet reinstated democracy and Castro didn't, obviously.
[QUOTE]

*Facepalm

PINOCHET WAS A DICTATOR. SALVADOR ALLENDE WAS A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST. Pinochet destroyed democracy, and re-implemented Capitalism, not Both. Augusto Pinochet was almost a punishment to the Chilean People for "Voting Wrong".


*EDIT
Oh, son of a bitch, I hate this forum layout, I'm so used to invisionfree and Revleft. Sorry, not used to the Quoting on this :o

NO NO NO the people with Tin foil on their heads say I am clearly destined to rule.

Yes, those campaigns never fail!
http://word.world-citizenship.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/larouche1.jpg

Again, not as much as you depict.
Since you ignore everything I say, while providing zero evidence for your claims, I'll just save myself the time and energy and completely debunk your claim that Cuban society is not censored or that Cuba is not extremely unfree:

The Worldwide Press Freedom Index, from the Reporters without Borders ranks Cuba as 169 out of 173, better only than Myanmar, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea when it comes to cencorship.

Freedom House ranks Cuba as 7 out of 7 (the worst) for Political Rights and 6 out of 7 (second worst) for Civil Liberties and concludes that Cuba is Not Free .

Are those lies or were you lying when stating that Cuba wasn't as censored or unfree as I had stated?

Reference my post immediately previous.

Genealogical qualifications be damned!

http://neoshinka.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/napoleon-i-in-his-coronation-robes-baron-francois-pascal-simon-gerard-1805_400.jpg

Picked by the four tinfoiled(wise) men. they were lead to my birth by a star.
So my genealogical qualifications is Son of God.

Descendant of Robert the Bruce, Béla I of Hungary, William the Conqueror, Hugh Capet, Rurik of Novgorod, Mieszko I of Poland, Charlemagne, Attila the Hun, Justinian I, Constantine the Great, Caesar Augustus, Gaozu of Han, Ptolemy Soter of Egypt, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, Wu of Zhou, and Ramesses the Great. Among others, of course, but those are the big names I have at the moment.

Descendant of Robert the Bruce, Béla I of Hungary, William the Conqueror, Hugh Capet, Rurik of Novgorod, Mieszko I of Poland, Charlemagne, Attila the Hun, Justinian I, Constantine the Great, Caesar Augustus, Gaozu of Han, Ptolemy Soter of Egypt, Alexander the Great, Cyrus the Great, Wu of Zhou, and Ramesses the Great. Among others, of course, but those are the big names I have at the moment.

Son of God seems to trump all that.

Son of God seems to trump all that.

greed and death.

Superstar.

Genealogical qualifications be damned!

http://neoshinka.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/napoleon-i-in-his-coronation-robes-baron-francois-pascal-simon-gerard-1805_400.jpg

Damned usurper! :p

Actually, I think Napoleon was the shit. Until he invaded Russia, that is.

I have a good one. What do you get when the French Revolution erupts in your kitchen?

Son of God seems to trump all that.

But is there proof for that? I can back up my claims.

Given all the sources out there, Wikipedia, when backed up with those sources, is quite reliable for this sort of thing. I'd have to dig up a few pages to find the fill for the holes.

Damned usurper! :p

Usurpers rock.

Actually, I think Napoleon was the shit.

Is that a complement?

Until he invaded Russia, that is.

And the Russian people would have supported him, too--but he was framed as the one who burned Moscow...the Czar was this close to surrendering.

Since you ignore everything I say, while providing zero evidence for your claims, I'll just save myself the time and energy and completely debunk your claim that Cuban society is not censored or that Cuba is not extremely unfree:

The Worldwide Press Freedom Index, from the Reporters without Borders ranks Cuba as 169 out of 173, better only than Myanmar, Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea when it comes to cencorship.

Freedom House ranks Cuba as 7 out of 7 (the worst) for Political Rights and 6 out of 7 (second worst) for Civil Liberties and concludes that Cuba is Not Free .

Are those lies or were you lying when stating that Cuba wasn't as censored or unfree as I had stated?

You seem to be unable...wait. How shall I put this.

Okay. When you turn the lights on, you hit a switch, right? The light can be on or off. You put it one way and it's on, and you put it the other way and it's off. This is called 'binary', when only two choices are possible. Like being pregnant. No halfways about it.

Now, some lights have dimmer switches. You can make the lights darker without turning them off. This is no longer 'binary'. More than two choices are possible. It's a little more complicated , but it's good when talking about things like freedom.

Still with me?

Now, freedom is not the like the on-off switch. More like the dimmer switch. (it's actually more complicated, but this will do for now) So, if we imagine that freedom is equal to light, Cuba is quite dark, while developed nations like Canada are considerably brighter.

I'm saying that the way you talk about Cuba is like pretending it's alight switch that's turned off, while Aelosia talks about it as if it were attached to a dimmer switch.

But is there proof for that? I can back up my claims.

Of course not; but many who have made that claim became powerful as a result.

But is there proof for that? I can back up my claims.

Given all the sources out there, Wikipedia, when backed up with those sources, is quite reliable for this sort of thing. I'd have to dig up a few pages to find the fill for the holes.

The wise men have proclaimed it. There needs be no more proof.

You seem to be unable...wait. How shall I put this.

Okay. When you turn the lights on, you hit a switch, right? The light can be on or off. You put it one way and it's on, and you put it the other way and it's off. This is called 'binary', when only two choices are possible. Like being pregnant. No halfways about it.

Now, some lights have dimmer switches. You can make the lights darker without turning them off. This is no longer 'binary'. More than two choices are possible. It's a little more complicated , but it's good when talking about things like freedom.

Still with me?

Now, freedom is not the like the on-off switch. More like the dimmer switch. (it's actually more complicated, but this will do for now) So, if we imagine that freedom is equal to light, Cuba is quite dark, while developed nations like Canada are considerably brighter.

I'm saying that the way you talk about Cuba is like pretending it's alight switch that's turned off, while Aelosia talks about it as if it were attached to a dimmer switch.

7 out of 7 and 6 out of 7 is pretty damned dark.

Is that a complement?

Aye, it was. :)
The guy was brilliant! :hail:

And the Russian people would have supported him, too--but he was framed as the one who burned Moscow...the Czar was this close to surrendering.

If he would have succeeded, I would probably have tried to marry a female descendant of his. :D

He is a dictator not matter how it is sugarcoated. At the end of the day he is in the same league as Robert Mugabe and Kim Jon-Ill

The wise men have proclaimed it. There needs be no more proof.

Bring me these wise men, please.

He is a dictator not matter how it is sugarcoated. At the end of the day he is in the same league as Robert Mugabe and Kim Jon-Ill

A dictator with a good idea here and there is still worth looking at for those good ideas.

As well as for an example of how not to run a country. :p

Bring me these wise men, please.

They have returned to their countries.

But they have left gifts as proof Gold(ball of aluminum foil), Frankincense ( bottle of mad dog filled with flowers), and myrrh ( looks kinda like a crack rock).
you can inspect those.

Aye, it was. :)
The guy was brilliant! :hail:

When I go to game-conventions I have "L'Empereur" written on my name tag--and I wear nickers, knee-high boots, a bicorne, and a long gray coat...

If he would have succeeded, I would probably have tried to marry a female descendant of his. :D

I could make you a duke, then.

They have returned to their countries.

But they have left gifts as proof Gold(ball of aluminum foil), Frankincense ( bottle of mad dog filled with flowers), and myrrh ( looks kinda like a crack rock).
you can inspect those.

Summon them, if you will. I would like to, er, have a brief word with them. :p

I could make you a duke, then.

We are talking about France, right? What about subordinate King of the Navarre region? :p

Summon them, if you will. I would like to, er, have a brief word with them. :p

First smell deeply of the myrrh whilst it burns.

You know, I do wonder, if Cuba supresses all information, and if foreign reporters are not allowed in the country...

How is it that TAI has all these sources on how terrible life in Cuba is?

Im not inclined to believe CIA reports. Im also skeptical of KGB reports.

Because he has not kissed our ass.

That's not necessary, we're the one's who cut off diplomatic relations.

I haven't been to North Korea either. Am I a biased liar by telling you that it is, like Cuba, an unfree, dictatorial, economically ruined, censored regime? No, because thanks to freedom of information, I can find that out without actually going there.

Ah, yes, the American freedom of information. Information that is utterly manipulated by the government and the media. Yes, reliable sources, truthful, the best there are. Amazing.:rolleyes:

Guess what? I was there, your opinion on this subject is bullshit. Whatever your views of Castro, the truth is that Cubans are ok, happy and if it wasn't for the embargo your greedy country has on them, the island nation would kick your collective asses.

Anyway, what should I expect of a Pinochet apologist like you? Nothing worth my wile.

We are talking about France, right? What about subordinate King of the Navarre region? :p

:confused: I thought that was in Spain.

First smell deeply of the myrrh whilst it burns.

*inhales*

Smells like a barn in here! That can't be myrrh, but it could sure pass for bullshit! :p

:confused: I thought that was in Spain.

Am I correct in assuming Milks Empire just considers Navarra a part of France?:confused:

Ah, yes, the American freedom of information. Information that is utterly manipulated by the government and the media. Yes, reliable sources, truthful, the best there are. Amazing.:rolleyes:


Umm, Im sorry, this is kind of bullshit. The government does not manipulate our media, and not every new source is Fox News. The media in America manipulates information just as much as any news source does in any country anywhere in the world. And just like in other nations, some news sources are vastly superior to others. America has very good freedom of information and excellent access to a wide variety to news sources.

:confused: I thought that was in Spain.

It's split about 50-50 by the Pyrenees. The north got merged into France under Louis XIII and the south wound up eaten at some point by Habsburg Spain.

Am I correct in assuming Milks Empire just considers Navarra a part of France?:confused:

See above.

It's split about 50-50 by the Pyrenees. The north got merged into France under Louis XIII and the south wound up eaten by Habsburg Spain.

But currently Navarra is part of Spain. You're just referring to past history.

Guess what? I was there, your opinion on this subject is bullshit. Whatever your views of Castro, the truth is that Cubans are ok, happy and if it wasn't for the embargo your greedy country has on them, the island nation would kick your collective asses.

Hey! We are not all in favor of that insipid embargo--in fact, one of the main reasons I dislike Hillary Clinton is because she is so anti-Cuba (she even wants to limit American visitation). When that embargo stops, I guarantee you that most Americans will rejoice.

It's split about 50-50 by the Pyrenees. The north got merged into France under Louis XIII and the south wound up eaten at some point by Habsburg Spain.

Let us make it simple: You can have Gascony.

Hey! We are not all in favor of that insipid embargo--in fact, one of the main reasons I dislike Hillary Clinton is because she is so anti-Cuba (she even wants to limit American visitation). When that embargo stops, I guarantee you that most Americans will rejoice.

I'm sorry if my snapping at TAI made you uncomfortable Parky-sama, or anyone else here from the US. I just got angry. My apologies.

But currently Navarra is part of Spain. You're just referring to past history.

I should have specified earlier as to what exactly I meant by Navarre - the kingdom ruled by my 21st-great-grandparents, Joan I and her husband Philip I (IV of France).

I'm sorry if my snapping at TAI made you uncomfortable Parky-sama, or anyone else here from the US. I just got angry. My apologies.

I understand your frusteration, I really do. I feel it towards other posters on a regular basis. Just dont do what some other posters (me included) do and exaggerate;)

I should have specified earlier as to what exactly I meant by Navarre - the kingdom ruled by my 21st-great-grandparents, Joan I and her husband Philip I (IV of France).

I am aware of that piece of its history, Milks. Navarre has always been... as the Euskal Herria, quite a touchy subject.

I understand your frusteration, I really do. I feel it towards other posters on a regular basis. Just dont do what some other posters (me included) do and exaggerate;)

*pounces on Trve*
Sorry Trve-san, nya.:D

That's not necessary, we're the one's who cut off diplomatic relations.

We are also the one who represent 20% of the worlds trade, and given proximity likely 50% of trade with Cuba. What does Cuba have to offer a box of cigars ?

*inhales*

Smells like a barn in here! That can't be myrrh, but it could sure pass for bullshit! :p

No it was crack and now that your addicted call me god or get no more!!!

I am aware of that piece of its history, Milks. Navarre has always been... as the Euskal Herria, quite a touchy subject.

I wanted to tie that part of Navarre's history with the corresponding part of my family's history. :)

I wanted to tie that part of Navarre's history with the corresponding part of my family's history. :)

Since you descend from royalty, should I courtsey to you?:tongue:

I'm sorry if my snapping at TAI made you uncomfortable Parky-sama, or anyone else here from the US. I just got angry. My apologies.

Über-patriots who condone fascism sometimes misrepresent the United States.

No it was crack and now that your addicted call me god or get no more!!!

Non, merci. :D

Über-patriots who condone fascism sometimes misrepresent the United States.

So desu ne.

*pounces on Trve*
Sorry Trve-san, nya.:D

You just jumped on me and you're apologizing beeecccaaauuuussseeeee.....?;)

You just jumped on me and you're apologizing beeecccaaauuuussseeeee.....?;)

For snapping... nya? <_<

Since you descend from royalty, should I courtsey to you?:tongue:

In all seriousness, nah. In the unlikely... Scratch that. Spain would never in a million years accept me as king, even though I'm descended from Santo Rey Don Fernando III de Castilla y de Léon. No hablo muy bien en todo el español.

In all seriousness, nah. In the unlikely... Scratch that. Spain would never in a million years accept me as king, even though I'm descended from Santo Rey Don Fernando III de Castilla y de Léon. No hablo muy bien en todo el español.

Bah, several of my kings spoke only German (Hapsburg) or French (Borbons) so... But yes, we would never accept a "gaijin" as our king. :tongue:

Bah, several of my kings spoke only German (Hapsburg) or French (Borbons) so... But yes, we would never accept a "gaijin" as our king. :tongue:

Besides, I have way too much respect for Rey Juan Carlos to even consider an attempt at usurping.

But what about a spot in the line of succession...? :p

Besides, I have way too much respect for Rey Juan Carlos to even consider an attempt at usurping.

But what about a spot in the line of succession...? :p

Y que no quepa duda! :hail:

But yeah, his son the Prince of Asturias is in succession anyway. You don't stand a chance.

Y que no quepa duda! :hail:

But yeah, his son the Prince of Asturias is in succession anyway. You don't stand a chance.

I'd be satisfied to be dead last in line, not for a realistic chance at ever being crowned, but as an acknowledgment of the existence of a blood kinship.

I'd be satisfied to be dead last in line, not for a realistic chance at ever being crowned, but as an acknowledgment of the existence of a blood kinship.

Have you ever tried approaching the scholars of the Spanish royal family. If there's even a distant relation between you and the Borbons, it's a good idea to see you're added to the genealogy.

Have you ever tried approaching the scholars of the Spanish royal family. If there's even a distant relation between you and the Borbons, it's a good idea to see you're added to the genealogy.

I'm not sure where I would say I'm related - San Fernando, the last Spanish king in my direct lineage, or Philip IV of France, the last Capet monarch (the Borbóns are Capets, for those who don't know) in my direct lineage.

I'm not sure where I would say I'm related - San Fernando, the last Spanish king in my direct lineage, or Philip IV of France, the last Capet monarch (the Borbóns are Capets, for those who don't know) in my direct lineage.

How far back is this relation? You mentioned great-grandparents, right?

I'm not sure where I would say I'm related - San Fernando, the last Spanish king in my direct lineage, or Philip IV of France, the last Capet monarch (the Borbóns are Capets, for those who don't know) in my direct lineage.

That is irrelevant The son of God decrees for you to take up the Spanish throne.

That is irrelevant The son of God decrees for you to take up the Spanish throne.

You want to die, Greedy? *approaches with poisoned stiletto*

How far back is this relation? You mentioned great-grandparents, right?

For Philip, 23 generations and about 700 years. For San Fernando, 24 generations and about 800 years. Depending on whether or not any Scottish/British royals married in along the way, in which case the most recent common ancestor would be James I of Scotland and Queen Joan (née Beaufort) - 18 generations and 600 years.

That would put me right around dead last, right? :p

You want to die, Greedy? *approaches with poisoned stiletto*

That is irrelevant The son of God decrees for you to take up the Spanish throne.

The son of god also decrees Nanatsu no Tsuki is to be queen of Spain.

For Philip, 23 generations and about 700 years. For San Fernando, 24 generations and about 800 years. Depending on whether or not any Scottish/British royals married in along the way, in which case the most recent common ancestor would be James I of Scotland and Queen Joan (née Beaufort) - 18 generations and 600 years.

That would put me right around dead last, right? :p

I fear so. You're nowhere near the line of succession, but still are part of the family, removed, but part of the family. I say you have a shot at being included in the genealogy. :wink:

*ahem*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588534

You want to die, Greedy? *approaches with poisoned stiletto*

*approaches along with to NnT brandishing a sword caked in dried blood believed to have last been used to behead Charles I of England & Scotland*

Not staging a coup against Rey Juan Carlos. Period.

*ahem*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588534

¡Muchos gracias!

Bit of a wanker, but the sanctions against him go too far.

*SNIP*
Two problems with that.

1. There already exists a title for 'dim but not dark' and that's the "partially free" label as in "free, partially free and unfree". Those are the ranking from Freedom House.

2. However you look at it, Cuba is almost at the very bottom, so even if you wanted to say the countries in the middle areas where 'dim but not dark', you couldn't claim that for Cuba.

Remember, 7 out of 7 for Political Rights is the worst you can possibly be rated, and 6 out of 7 is one above the worst you can possibly be rated. That makes Cuba pretty fucking dark, as in no light, as far as your analogy is concerned.

Also, Reporters without Borders gave it a rating of the 169th most censored country, out of 173. If that's not at the bottom, I don't know what is. Only two countries seperate Cuba and North Korea, yet you'd NEVER hear people saying "North Korea doesn't really censor as much as you'd think." You're biased, it's normal, but it's causing you to lose this argument.

Bit of a wanker, but the sanctions against him go too far.

If he kissed our ass sanctions would be lifted.

You know, I do wonder, if Cuba supresses all information, and if foreign reporters are not allowed in the country...

How is it that TAI has all these sources on how terrible life in Cuba is?

Im not inclined to believe CIA reports. Im also skeptical of KGB reports.
We've moved beyond CIA and KGB partisan reports and on to NGO reports. If you'll re-read my claims you'll see I used Reporters without Borders, which is a NGO (based out of Paris) and Freedom House, which is an NGO based in America.

http://www.rsf.org/

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1

Ah, yes, the American freedom of information. Information that is utterly manipulated by the government and the media. Yes, reliable sources, truthful, the best there are. Amazing.:rolleyes:
This post is incorrect because:

1. Our government does not manipulate our media and our media is considered free by NGO's non-partisan to the American government.

2. It's irrelevant because, as I showed above, I've use two NGO's, one based out of America and one based out of France (but both NON-governmental) to make my claim about Cuba being extremely unfree and censored. You counter with "the American government manipulates its media." That doesn't fit.
the truth is that Cubans are ok, happy
What? You speak for all Cubans? What about the hundreds of thousands that have left for the United States, often braving death along the way simply to have a better life because their government doesn't allow them freedom of movement?
and if it wasn't for the embargo your greedy country has on them, the island nation would kick your collective asses.
lol . . . so what you're saying is, without the economic embargo, the Cuban economy would kick the American economy's ass? :p
Umm, Im sorry, this is kind of bullshit. The government does not manipulate our media, and not every new source is Fox News. The media in America manipulates information just as much as any news source does in any country anywhere in the world. And just like in other nations, some news sources are vastly superior to others. America has very good freedom of information and excellent access to a wide variety to news sources.
This. Correct, though irrelevant because, again, I was using NGO's and non-American governmental sources. :p

And it must be noted that while Fox has a neo-conservative bias, that doesn't mean the government controls it and manipulates it. That just means it has a bias and exists to cater to people that are of that opinion. It's no different than what is common in Europe, which is to read newspapers and such that are ideologically similar to your beliefs. For example, in Paris, I know from first hand experience it's quite common for Leftists to read the ideologically left Libération. In Germany it's also quite common for right wing people to read the more pro-business right wing papers and for left wing people to read the more pro-labor and such left wing papers.

I actually find that valuing 'neutral' news, in general, is more common in America than in Europe.

(UK may be the exception)

If he kissed our ass sanctions would be lifted.

Why should Raúl Castro (or anyone else, for that matter) have to kiss anyone's ass?

Why should Raúl Castro (or anyone else, for that matter) have to kiss anyone's ass?

what Economic benefit would Cuba gain from trade with the US ?

What economic benefit would the US gain from trade with Cuba?

I am willing to bet the answer to the first question is somewhere along the line of doubling their GDP.
Where as the answer to the second question would be barely noticeable.

Why should Raúl Castro (or anyone else, for that matter) have to kiss anyone's ass?

The answer is: no one--but we do not live in a world that is the way it "should" be.

I would hope a leader would put his country above his ego.

For small countries like Cuba Trade is not a right, it is a privilege. They best learn to kiss the regional powers ass.

The answer is: no one--but we do not live in a world that is the way it "should" be.

I would hope a leader would put his country above his ego.

That's what Marx wrote was supposed to happen, but it never seems to work that way. Thank you, megalomania...

That's what Marx wrote was supposed to happen, but it never seems to work that way. Thank you, megalomania...

Lenin lived at the same level of the average Russian. *nod*

That's what Marx wrote was supposed to happen, but it never seems to work that way. Thank you, megalomania...

There were many leaders who identified themselves with the welfare of their nations.

For small countries like Cuba Trade is not a right, it is a privilege. They best learn to kiss the regional powers ass.

Would you be willing to kiss the ass of the same country that basically stabbed you in the back?

Would you be willing to kiss the ass of the same country that basically stabbed you in the back?

Yes, if it meant much needed trade.

Lenin lived at the same level of the average Russian. *nod*

Edit: Rarely works out that way.

Yes, if it meant much needed trade.

And you would trust them not to stab you again?

And you would trust them not to stab you again?

No. Most national governments are deviant pricks toward other countries.

Would you be willing to kiss the ass of the same country that basically stabbed you in the back?

yes. feed my people or stand on principle with millions starving. Choice seems easy feed my people. Besides history shows if you kiss the US's ass enough they declare you to be their son of a bitch and your free to oppress whoever.

No. Most national governments are deviant pricks toward other countries.

Then why bother kissing ass in the first place if (given the history between the US and Cuba) it'll more than likely lead to another betrayal?

yes. feed my people or stand on principle with millions starving. Choice seems easy feed my people. Besides history shows if you kiss the US's ass enough they declare you to be their son of a bitch and your free to oppress whoever.

They'd wind up starving anyway after the US stabs them in the back yet again.

Then why bother kissing ass in the first place if (given the history between the US and Cuba) it'll more than likely lead to another betrayal?

What do you mean "betrayal"? I would "kiss ass" to bolster the economy; that does not mean I would all-of-a-sudden trust the U.S.A. not to try and screw me over.

They'd wind up starving anyway after the US stabs them in the back yet again.

Mmmmmmno. Get as much food as possible for the moment, then worry about whether or not the U.S. will start another embargo (highly unlikely).

What do you mean "betrayal"? I would "kiss ass" to bolster the economy; that does not mean I would all-of-a-sudden trust the U.S.A. not to try and screw me over.

After the Spanish-American War, when Cuba was supposedly independent, there was this little thing called the Platt Amendment. We basically had near-complete controlled their finances and foreign affairs.

Then there was the mob rule during the Batista regime that no one in the US did anything to even attempt to stop. Made life for the average Cuban a living hell.

Then along comes Castro, who we initially support. When he decided that Cubans could run certain businesses better, we slap Cuba in the face, walk away, and leave them at the mercy of Moscow.

You're Cuba. You would let these people back in after they raped you and left you for dead?

After the Spanish-American War, when Cuba was supposedly independent, there was this little thing called the Platt Amendment. We basically had near-complete controlled their finances and foreign affairs.

Then there was the mob rule during the Batista regime that no one in the US did anything to even attempt to stop. Made life for the average Cuban a living hell.

Then along comes Castro, who we initially support. When he decided that Cubans could run certain businesses better, we slap Cuba in the face, walk away, and leave them at the mercy of Moscow.

You're Cuba. You would let these people back in after they raped you and left you for dead?

I would not let the American government control my finances. I would just keep saying publicly how "great" I think America is, and how I will kill anyone who disagrees. I would be instantly allowed trade.

I would not let the American government control my finances. I would just keep saying publicly how "great" I think America is, and how I will kill anyone who disagrees. I would be instantly allowed trade.

That would work, except that this country is, when it comes to the western hemisphere, a vulture waiting for any sign that there might be carrion. That kind of ass-kissing is just the sign that would start yet another de facto colonial regime.

And you would trust them not to stab you again?
Well, given that we tried to stab Fidel Castro and he does not rule the country anymore . . .

yes I think that Raul Castro should man up, admit that their economic system sucks cock, and that Communism is not doing Cuba any favors, reform their political/economic system, open up Castro to the free-market and the world and in doing so initiate trade with the U.S.

You can say whatever you want about the history during the cold war, but the fact remains that the cold war is over and Cuba's political-economy, while having been a bit reformed, still sucks and is the reason why there is massive corruption, no freedom and massive poverty. If Raul started freeing up social, political and economic freedoms in his country, the U.S. would surely stop the embargo. Capital investment will surge into Cuba (in the case that the government does reform itself) and will defeat Communism in Cuba, re-buil infrastructure, provide jobs and stimulate all around much needed economic growth.

Cuba is not a bad place and Cuban people (the zillions of them that I've met in South Florida) are good, often intelligent people . . .they just have a backwards oppressive government that hinders their potential.

There is a chant in Miami that really inspires me everytime I hear it and it goes a little something like this:

Quizas no sea hoy, ni manana . . . pero muy pronto nuestro dia nos llegara. Viva Cuba libre!

For those of you who don't speak Spanish, it means:

Perhaps it won't be today, nor tomorrow . . . but our day shall arrive very soon. Long live free Cuba!

That would work, except that this country is, when it comes to the western hemisphere, a vulture waiting for any sign that there might be carrion. That kind of ass-kissing is just the sign that would start yet another de facto colonial regime.

How would some public remarks start a "de facto colonial regime"?

That's what Marx wrote was supposed to happen

Not in particular, no.

That would work, except that this country is, when it comes to the western hemisphere, a vulture waiting for any sign that there might be carrion. That kind of ass-kissing is just the sign that would start yet another de facto colonial regime.

No one is saying let the US station troops on the island. Trade.

How would some public remarks start a "de facto colonial regime"?
Cuba would be a 'de facto colonial regime' were it to start cozying up to the U.S. as much as Colombia is. That is to say, it wouldn't be. It would benefit from being closer to the U.S, as Colombia did.

Our government does not manipulate our media and our media is considered free by NGO's non-partisan to the American government.
The US government might not manipulate media in the way that dictatorships do, but it does so in other ways; as do any modern governments. Major news outlets rely on governments to supply them with much information they couldn't access themselves, and, as such, have to play ball with said governments. Mainstream media is limited to an increasingly narrow set of views, and is controlled with an even more increasingly narrow set of owners.

It's hard to be completely unmanipulated when manipulation is key to publication.

It's irrelevant because, as I showed above, I've use two NGO's, one based out of America and one based out of France (but both NON-governmental) to make my claim about Cuba being extremely unfree and censored. You counter with "the American government manipulates its media." That doesn't fit.
Except there are questions (http://www.counterpunch.com/barahona08012006.html) raised (http://www.counterpunch.com/barahona05172005.html) about the legitimacy of RWB's 'non-partisan' status -- it has funding links to the International Republican Institute and the U.S. State Department -- while Freedom House garners 80% of its funding (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/49.pdf) (.pdf) from the US government, and has repeatedly come under attack for favourable rating countries with pro-US positions. Indeed, it states that "American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom" (Source (http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=2)).

The fact that RWB and FH are linked to a succession of US administrations does not prove that Cuba's press is wonderful and free, far from it, but to hold up a US government-funded report of the US press as evidence of the freedom of the US press is farcical.

The US government might not manipulate media in the way that dictatorships do, but it does so in other ways; as do any modern governments. Major news outlets rely on governments to supply them with much information they couldn't access themselves, and, as such, have to play ball with said governments. Mainstream media is limited to an increasingly narrow set of views, and is controlled with an even more increasingly narrow set of owners.

It's hard to be completely unmanipulated when manipulation is key to publication.Which is fine, but then American media is not more manipulated than any other free/western media system, so her point of stating that 'American media' is manipulated thus unfree is false, unless she is claiming that along with the medias of every other modern western/free nations. Which she wasn't.


Except there are questions (http://www.counterpunch.com/barahona08012006.html) raised (http://www.counterpunch.com/barahona05172005.html) about the legitimacy of RWB's 'non-partisan' status -- it has funding links to the International Republican Institute and the U.S. State Department
Maybe so, but that doesn't make it wrong. The U.S. donates to probably more NGO's than any other nation in the world. Also, Amnesty International as well has been accused of being biased (by multiple sides), yet it is still a legitimate NGO, as is Reporters without borders.

-- while Freedom House garners 80% of its funding (http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/special_report/49.pdf) (.pdf) from the US government, and has repeatedly come under attack from favourable rating countries with pro-US positions. Indeed, it states that "American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom".
Yes, Freedom House can be seen to be pro-US because pro-US is pro-democratic, pro-checked government and pro-political freedom, officially. Obviously, to a Communist (like Cuban government officials) Freedom House will be fundamentally biased because Communism doesn't view all of these things as freedoms. Logically.


Some examples: "Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections?", "Is there an independent judiciary?", "Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?"[14] Freedom House states that the rights and liberties of the survey are derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[14]

While in Cuba, it's against the law to merely possess the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Obviously claims of bias will be shouted when there is such a fundamental difference in what "freedom" means.

Fortunately, Communism is wrong and our definition, that is the Liberal definition of freedom, is correct.

The fact that RWB and FH are linked to a succession of US administrations does not prove that Cuba's press is wonderful and free, far from it, but to hold up a US-funded report as evidence of the freedom of the US press is farcical.

To be fair, if I recall correctly, I didn't use these organizations to prove that the U.S. press is free, but rather to prove that Cuba is un-free, cencorship-wise.

Which is fine, but then American media is not more manipulated than any other free/western media system, so her point of stating that 'American media' is manipulated thus unfree is false, unless she is claiming that along with the medias of every other modern western/free nations. Which she wasn't.
They're not mutually exclusive claims. To illustrate, I can happi;y claim that you are male without mentioning that there also are lots of other males on NS:G.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it wrong.
It makes RWB an organisation that isn't entirely independent of the US government.

And that's an important factor to account for when deciding how to take the information RWB supplies.

Yes, Freedom House can be seen to be pro-US because pro-US is pro-democratic, pro-checked government and pro-political freedom, officially.
No, Freedom House can be seen to be pro-US because it is about 80% funded by the US government and sees the US government as they key to worldwide, US-led, liberal democratic stability.

There's a difference between agreeing with the stance of a government and being financially and politically tied to it.

Fortunately, Communism is wrong and our definition, that is the Liberal definition of freedom, is correct.
As Popeye would say, 'Ug ug ug ug'.

One of the boldest begging the questions I've ever witnessed. I thought by now you'd understand that Liberalism and myself don't get on too well...

To be fair, if I recall correctly, I didn't use these organizations to prove that the U.S. press is free, but rather to prove that Cuba is un-free, cencorship-wise.
You only did so tangentially, and I didn't mean to suggest that this was your main point. Apologies if I did so.

My point is that though we can see that Cuba's press is not wonderfully free, both organisations' conception of 'press freedom' is horribly tainted.

Freedom House is far from perfect, but they do also criticize pro-U.S. dictatorships. Both historic and contemporary examples include Pinochet's Chile, apartheid South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Zaire under Mobutu, Taiwan under the Kuomintang, etc.

It also brings me back to the question no one has answered. If Castro is so bad, why haven't the Cubans revolted or somehow gotten rid of him?

Lulz, yeah why dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Franco, Salazar, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein and all others who died at power, or were removed by foreign invasion,(well Kim is still in office but point remains) were not taken down by revolting population? I guess they must have not been that bad.

Olmedreca;14654297']Lulz, yeah why dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Franco, Salazar, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein and all others who died at power, or were removed by foreign invasion,(well Kim is still in office but point remains) were not taken down by revolting population? I guess they must have not been that bad.

I think what G-o-g was saying "if their own people thought they were so bad..."

Stalin still has widespread support in modern day Russia, and the 'movement' still had support during and after his rule despite his acts. Mussolini was overthrown/ousted. Franco is still 'loved' by a large proportion of Spaniards today. Salazar was overthrown. Saddam Hussein was kindly supported by certain Western powers for decades, so he could easily crush all opposition.

They'd wind up starving anyway after the US stabs them in the back yet again.

Once the embargo is lifted the politics isn't right to start another embargo. Unless they start letting the Russians move nuclear weapons on the island again.

Umm, Im sorry, this is kind of bullshit. The government does not manipulate our media, and not every new source is Fox News. The media in America manipulates information just as much as any news source does in any country anywhere in the world. And just like in other nations, some news sources are vastly superior to others. America has very good freedom of information and excellent access to a wide variety to news sources.

This is tangential to the thread, but any free market model of the press will eventually only have those voices that increase shareholder profit. This is why the left don't have an international media network. We have lots of little community presses. It woulod be absurd to suggest that these little presses getthe same voice in public debate that large media outlets do.

This is, of course, different from deliberate suppression of media voices by the government.

Two problems with that.

1. There already exists a title for 'dim but not dark' and that's the "partially free" label as in "free, partially free and unfree". Those are the ranking from Freedom House.

2. However you look at it, Cuba is almost at the very bottom, so even if you wanted to say the countries in the middle areas where 'dim but not dark', you couldn't claim that for Cuba.

Remember, 7 out of 7 for Political Rights is the worst you can possibly be rated, and 6 out of 7 is one above the worst you can possibly be rated. That makes Cuba pretty fucking dark, as in no light, as far as your analogy is concerned.

Also, Reporters without Borders gave it a rating of the 169th most censored country, out of 173. If that's not at the bottom, I don't know what is. Only two countries seperate Cuba and North Korea, yet you'd NEVER hear people saying "North Korea doesn't really censor as much as you'd think." You're biased, it's normal, but it's causing you to lose this argument.

See below.

Olmedreca;14654297']Lulz, yeah why dictators like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Franco, Salazar, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein and all others who died at power, or were removed by foreign invasion,(well Kim is still in office but point remains) were not taken down by revolting population? I guess they must have not been that bad.

Finally, someone answered my question. Well, not really, but at least they didn't ignore it.

Now, as TAI has correctly pointed out, Cuba has a bad human rights record. That sucks. It really does. I imagine that the Cubans don't like that aspect of Cuban society. Yet there is no widespread discontent. In each of the examples Olmedreca pointed out, there was widespread discontent from the oppressed population. Often it was (or is) brutally repressed. yet we do not see the same thing happening in Cuba.

Why is that?

You could argue that the dissidents are going to Miami in order to escape the oppression. But then you have to explain how moving to Miami is an indicator of oppression and not just an economic move. After all, if number of immigrants to the USA was an indicator of oppression, then Mexico would be far, far worse than Cuba. And Tony Montana would actually have been a political prisoner.

Now, I'm not saying I know the answers, but the question remains, and indicates that the ratings used by those NGOs do not clearly communicate the Cuban reality.

I would not let the American government control my finances. I would just keep saying publicly how "great" I think America is, and how I will kill anyone who disagrees. I would be instantly allowed trade.

The whole point behind US involvement in Latin America is to have US interests in control of the local economies of Latin America. Realpolitik!

Cuba would be a 'de facto colonial regime' were it to start cozying up to the U.S. as much as Colombia is. That is to say, it wouldn't be. It would benefit from being closer to the U.S, as Colombia did.

I assume that you are simply unaware of the long record of human rights abuses perpetrated by the current Colombian government.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/colombia/page.do?id=1011135

If that is what happens to countries that ally themselves with the USA, perhaps it would not be such a good idea for Cuba.

I think what G-o-g was saying "if their own people thought they were so bad..."

Stalin still has widespread support in modern day Russia, and the 'movement' still had support during and after his rule despite his acts. Mussolini was overthrown/ousted. Franco is still 'loved' by a large proportion of Spaniards today. Salazar was overthrown. Saddam Hussein was kindly supported by certain Western powers for decades, so he could easily crush all opposition.

I really do hope that you are not claiming that Stalin's power was built on his popular support? You know NKVD was far more importnant factor. Mussolini lost power due foreign invasion, he had no problems before that. If he had really effective secret police like Gestapo or NKVD, then he probably could had stayed on power until surrounded in final bunker like Hitler. Salazar's regime actually outlived him so he definitely was not overthrown. Saddam also remained on power after western powers had started opposing him (non-flight zones and stuff), so blaming "evil capitalists" for that doesnt really work that well.

Finally, someone answered my question. Well, not really, but at least they didn't ignore it.

Now, as TAI has correctly pointed out, Cuba has a bad human rights record. That sucks. It really does. I imagine that the Cubans don't like that aspect of Cuban society. Yet there is no widespread discontent. In each of the examples Olmedreca pointed out, there was widespread discontent from the oppressed population. Often it was (or is) brutally repressed. yet we do not see the same thing happening in Cuba.

Why is that?

You could argue that the dissidents are going to Miami in order to escape the oppression. But then you have to explain how moving to Miami is an indicator of oppression and not just an economic move. After all, if number of immigrants to the USA was an indicator of oppression, then Mexico would be far, far worse than Cuba. And Tony Montana would actually have been a political prisoner.

Now, I'm not saying I know the answers, but the question remains, and indicates that the ratings used by those NGOs do not clearly communicate the Cuban reality.

Well, I cant claim to be really expert about Cuba, but it seems that he wasn't realy loved by everyone:
The uprising began almost immediately after Castro's rise to power in 1959. It was led by former Castro supporters and landlords disenchanted by his close ties to the Soviet Union and what they saw as his betrayal of the revolution's democratic ideals. The guerrilla war lasted longer and involved far more rebels than had the original struggle against the Batista forces[1][2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Against_the_Bandits

Olmedreca;14655067'].....


Well, I cant claim to be really expert about Cuba, but it seems that he wasn't realy loved by everyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Against_the_Bandits

But that ended in 1965. What about since then?

I think what G-o-g was saying "if their own people thought they were so bad..."

Stalin still has widespread support in modern day Russia, and the 'movement' still had support during and after his rule despite his acts. Mussolini was overthrown/ousted. Franco is still 'loved' by a large proportion of Spaniards today. Salazar was overthrown. Saddam Hussein was kindly supported by certain Western powers for decades, so he could easily crush all opposition.

Actually, Salazar was removed from office by the President after suffering a severe stroke. His successor was overthrown.