671–680 of 842 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you execute one person, you may as well keep going, because you're already evil and there's no scale?
Executes dissenters
Or is it just a matter of calling dissenters "traitors" and then it's fine? I'm sure Castro ticked that checkbox before the executions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Freedom House, according to wikipedia: "U.S. Government funded non-governmental organisation (NGO) that conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights Representatives of Cuba said that the organization is a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against th…
It's a little rich of the Russian representative to claim that, given that Russia has just withdrawn from the International Criminal Court. For what it's worth, Human Rights Watch's report about Cuba is also pretty damning: > The Cuban government continues to repress dissent and discourage public criticism. It now relies less on long-term prison sentences to punish its critics, but short-term arbitrary arrests of hum…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that Fidel Castro made many mistakes and is responsible for many atrocities. But the plight of Cuba is not his doing alone. He leaves behind a Cuba that was embargoed by the US, their closest and largest trade partner after the US had staged a failed invasion to overthrow the government. This forced them into the Soviet sphere of influence for supplies and trade. Then, when the Soviet Union collapsed at the e…
>I agree that Fidel Castro made many mistakes and is responsible for many atrocities. But the plight of Cuba is not his doing alone. In American English, the phrase, "He murdered thousands," can't be followed by the word "but..."
Then I hope you've been holding up to the same standard almost every American leader from the latter half of the 20th century till now - whether through political interference, violent regime change to authoritarian leaders, proxy wars, drone strikes or straight up war without a cause.
The truth is that in most people and things, we're inclined to overlook the good for the bad or the bad for the good, depending on our preconceived opinions. Most leaders - especially revolutionary ones - are this, but taken to the extreme, often liberating an entire populace while oppressing another. Which is why they often are notable for both, but more notable for one than the other depending on whether the person you're talking to suffered or prospered under their rule.
We shouldn't be afraid to say in the same breath that a person increased welfare and happiness for some and yet decreased it for others, stood up to imperialism and yet also was the pawn of larger global interests, was persecuted even while he persecuted others, was demonized even while he demonized others, was the target of many assassinations even while he ordered the murder of others, was spread lies and misinformation about even while he spread lies and misinformation about others. All of this happened together.
This doesn't mean it's balanced one way or another, or that one makes up for the other at all. This isn't excusing murder and atrocity - it's giving credence to the complexity of events. It's understanding how the life you live and the limited environment you live it in is very different from the experiences of others, and that people's realities, cares and worries are shaped more by things near them and less by things that don't affect them. It's a way towards understanding why others hold they opinions they do, and also a gateway to criticizing our own leaders and idols in the same way. Leaders should not be deified or demonized, but understood as a whole, wether to understand what to repeat and look up to or understand what never to allow to happen again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could you possibly assume that no children in Cuba sleep on the streets?
I know it's mindboggling, but really there aren't. This is one thing that Westerners typically don't get about the Communist-bloc countries, or don't seem to care. Whereas in average the standard of living was always much higher in Capitalist countries, if you looked at the Eastern European Communist bloc for example, there's no extreme poverty, because the state takes care of that (and it's an extremely important th…
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426334/cuba-working-cl...
I would encourage the commenters in this thread who see Fidel's legacy as a black-and-white matter of an "evil dictator who did bad things and was wrong about economics" to step back, bear witness to the objective facts about Fidel Castro's life ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro ), think sincerely about what could lead a highly intelligent and charismatic person to become or follow Fidel Castro (as many ha…
Castro is up there with the worst of the worst (Hitler, Pol pot, amin, mugabe, chavez, Kim Jong, Stalin, Mao, etc) these individuals resigned to their humanity the moment they decided to step all over their citizen's rights and dignity for their own benefit. Please stop trying to humanize him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're forgetting some details there. In the 1920s, Cuba was a big producer of sugar, and their largest trading partner was the US. US companies owned 60% of the sugar production. But during the great depression, the US introduced tariffs on a wide range of goods (from everywhere), and the Cuban sugar industry collapsed. Then when Fidel came to power one of the things he promised was to reduce the reliance on US trad…
You just said the US caused the sugar trade to collapse and then said Castro destroyed trade himself. Are you referring to trade besides sugar? Why WOULDNT Cuba decide (realize) that they need to protect themselves from the US?
This was 30 years before Fidel, before the embargo. The point was, you already had this anti-US sentiment in Cuba before Fidel came to power.
US Cuban trade did not end at that point. But when Fidel came to power (30 years later), he used that anti-US sentiment to nationalize all American property in Cuba. That is what actually ended US Cuban trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cuba scores well on a number of health indicators. Another latin american country, Mexico, also has high life expectancy (77yrs).
iirc, Cuba's health success is due to its socialized health care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's mindboggling, but really there aren't. This is one thing that Westerners typically don't get about the Communist-bloc countries, or don't seem to care. Whereas in average the standard of living was always much higher in Capitalist countries, if you looked at the Eastern European Communist bloc for example, there's no extreme poverty, because the state takes care of that (and it's an extremely important th…
Communism in Cuba has at least remained true to its roots, imposing, for more than half a century, a juvenile notion of egalitarianism on the masses. Rather than uplifting them, this has reinforced the lowest common denominator: Everyone is poor. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426334/cuba-working-cl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's mindboggling, but really there aren't. This is one thing that Westerners typically don't get about the Communist-bloc countries, or don't seem to care. Whereas in average the standard of living was always much higher in Capitalist countries, if you looked at the Eastern European Communist bloc for example, there's no extreme poverty, because the state takes care of that (and it's an extremely important th…
Communism in Cuba has at least remained true to its roots, imposing, for more than half a century, a juvenile notion of egalitarianism on the masses. Rather than uplifting them, this has reinforced the lowest common denominator: Everyone is poor. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426334/cuba-working-cl...