|
Post by matt on Nov 27, 2016 10:19:36 GMT -5
I don't think so - managers of state enterprises were selected for loyalty rather than professionalism and expertise, many more left the country as it was all about political gain rather than economic reasons. Manufacturing severely reduced with the policies. Also, workers efforts diverted to politics not productivity. Of course the US embargo had an effect, but on the whole, the regime's emphasis to put politics above practicalities severely harmed them. The embargo is key. The things you stated do not effect an economy as much as having limited exports and imports, and the inability to receive loans from other countries. These are basic ingredients for any economy to succeed. It doesn't matter who you hire or who leaves or who stays. You economy is going down the toilet if you don't have these. Take away the ability to trade and get loans from any country and that country's economy is dying a swift death no matter their policies. Because of a fall in trading partner, Cuba was reduced to one export, sugar. Once the sugar markets fell, the USSR propped up Cuba's economy by providing soft trade deals on sugar. Once the USSR collapsed, the decline in the sugar market hit Cuba and Cuba finally received an economy death knell. Who are you bringing to fix an economy with one export? No one. Don't get me wrong spaneli, the embargo shouldn't exist and Obama's movement with Cuba is one of many reasons I think he's brilliant. I just don't think the failure of Cuba's economy can be solely credited to the US embargo, which every single anti-American loon who blames every ill in this world on the country likes to trawl out. Much of Cuba's trading comes from many very wealthy US allies, so the extent of United States embargo could be rendered just an inconvenience if Cuba had a halfway competent government. It seems to be that anti-American opinion is an easy, simplistic stance to masquerade the Cuban government's severe incompetencies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 10:30:45 GMT -5
And USA is not guilty of those things you listed? Cuba was never going to be a peaceful country. And it didn't help that USA was constantly messing with them. Whose talking about American actions here, and whose denying it? Nobody as far as I can see (though, in truth, enforced state torture in not near to the extent of brutality as Cuba). It's just that you think that people are led to believe that those crimes are bad merely because of propaganda? Unless you are in favour of all that or you are just confused. But then again, what do you expect from a Trump supporter? Well, of course those firing squads are horrible thing to do but it's nothing new really. Even my great grandfather's uncle was killed in a firing squad after Finnish civil war because he happened to be in "wrong team". It's just that I feel like people are hypocrites when it comes to history. Most of the countries/leaders have done horrible things, and they're still doing it. Media has always been full of propaganda and they emphasize things they want. In this case it's the classic USA vs. Cuba, where Cuba is the evil side because they were "communists". Cuba was very corrupted before Castro took over. Castro's intentions were good, however, USA didn't like it so they started bombing Cuba and CIA trained men who tried to take over Castro's government. USA was the real bully in this case. And I've never said that I'm Trump supporter. If I ever supported anyone it would be Sanders, who happens to like Castro too.
|
|
|
Post by bastardnumber1 on Nov 27, 2016 12:41:07 GMT -5
It´s shocking that so many people think Castro was a good man.
|
|
|
Post by carlober on Nov 27, 2016 12:46:59 GMT -5
A tyrant, a murderer and a thief. Good riddance. 'Nuff said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 14:05:26 GMT -5
The US is so used to oppressing small countries and then blame the leader of a small country for oppressing his own people, and then they can play the "liberator" role. Someone typed it better than I could: For all we know, Cuba is a communist nation and Fidel Castro was the one who established a communist government there. And when? When there was a US leaning corrupt dictator General Batista ruling Cuba. And how? By totally undermining the US and aligning with the Soviets.
The when and how are important here. Overthrowing a US supported ruler was enough to make uncle sam angry. We went ahead and allied with Soviets. That made uncle sam furious. Discussions and debates over Castro being a "nice guy" or a "bad guy" is useless and full of biases. Reason being simple: US dollars. US dollars can turn a hero into villain overnight. And it can also turn a villain into a hero overnight. And the later being the case most of the times.
Let's look at what good Fidel or Cuba has done:
Universal healthcare: Cuban healthcare system is the best on planet. They have vaccines for the diseases we take medicines for treatment.
Universal Education: Look at Cuba's literacy rate against that of US.
Black rights: It was Fidel who helped Mandela to end apartheid. Mandela even paid a visit to Cuba.
Helping other poor counties: So many poor African countries were helped by Cuba to fight corrupt regimes, fight diseases and provide technical manpower to move forward.
Ebola: When the US President was busy calling for support, Cuba was the one who silently provided the maximum support to end Ebola. Infact it's effort bought most results.
Food: No one in Cuba has died of starvation as far as I remember.
Free music and cinema: Almost zero censorship on music and cinema. Surprisingly true.
End of mafia: American mafias were washed out from Cuba. Even today, Cuba has one of lowest crime rates.
Some so not good things:
Freedom: Yes. Homosexuals rights, internet, speech, thoughts etc. All are controlled by the government.
Military: But then again one may argue which country has gained "freedom" or "democracy" after US missle/drone strikes. Or has that ended terrorism? Also the controversial man Che Guvera. (My iPhone sadly doesn't predict his name. Why?)
Low income: Average income per month is $60-70. But then almost everything is free. Even no taxation. Monthly rations have now stopped though.
Cuban Missle Crisis: Alliance with the Soviets. You need to pay in some form for the sugar money you were getting from them.
Infrastructure: In a very sad state. Cuba could have used those Soviet aids to develop a good, long lasting infrastructure for betterment of its future. Its sad that they didn't.
But you must keep in mind all this happened under a US Trade Embargo. Countless assassination attempts and blocking almost every attempt of Cuba to develop and grow.
But why, after all that the US said in the past about the evils of Castro, Cuba and communism, the embargo now lifted, and Obama visit the island country?
My point wasn't to convince you that Castro is a good guy. The whole point was to try and show that he wasn't "that bad," the way former US governments tried to portray. E: Well, basically my point is that he made the country a lot better than most people could do. He took down the horrible, corrupted dictator Batista (supported by US) and after that started to make improvements. Of course he had to use violence to his opposition but has there ever been a dictator who hasn't done so? Democracy wasn't really an option that time... It's also really great how such a small country managed to fight against USA. It reminds me of Finland vs. USSR during WW2. E2: matt , I'm not defending his crimes but I think he had really good intentions. Like I said, he took down a dictator who was a lot worse than him. Cuba's future, violence and living conditions could've been much worse without Castro and that's my point. The country was too unstable to have democracy. It's maybe hard to realise that some countries might be better run with a dictator. And why am I talking about America? America=Western media and most people even in Europe seem to believe everything they hear from them. And also the fact that US were one of the biggest reasons why Cuba was suffering. E3: I have to add that I usually leave my emotions/feelings out when I'm thinking about these things. I don't want to upset anyone so sorry if my posts are too straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 27, 2016 14:44:05 GMT -5
Whose talking about American actions here, and whose denying it? Nobody as far as I can see (though, in truth, enforced state torture in not near to the extent of brutality as Cuba). It's just that you think that people are led to believe that those crimes are bad merely because of propaganda? Unless you are in favour of all that or you are just confused. But then again, what do you expect from a Trump supporter? Well, of course those firing squads are horrible thing to do but it's nothing new really. Even my great grandfather's uncle was killed in a firing squad after Finnish civil war because he happened to be in "wrong team". It's just that I feel like people are hypocrites when it comes to history. Most of the countries/leaders have done horrible things, and they're still doing it. Media has always been full of propaganda and they emphasize things they want. In this case it's the classic USA vs. Cuba, where Cuba is the evil side because they were "communists". Cuba was very corrupted before Castro took over. Castro's intentions were good, however, USA didn't like it so they started bombing Cuba and CIA trained men who tried to take over Castro's government. USA was the real bully in this case. And I've never said that I'm Trump supporter. If I ever supported anyone it would be Sanders, who happens to like Castro too. Why are we talking about the US here? You seem to be confused in thinking any critic of Castro is defending US actions. I don't care whether he was pro-American or anti-American, the man was a tyrant. And guess what, living conditions are still appalling, and universal healthcare doesn't mean a thing when the ordinary still cannot afford it, nor does 'universal literacy' mean anything when you are dictated what you should and shouldn't read. And he banned The Beatles - so he must be a total c*nt... A dictator is a dictator and should never be admired. Bringing US actions into it as a means of leading the debate in another direction is a desperate and shameful attempt to trivialise the fact this was a guy who state sanctioned the torture, rape and execution of homosexuals, amongst many other human rights abuse. But as you yourself say, he was a 'great man' apparently.... Anyone who lionises him is either morally corrupt in their trivialisation of such horrific crimes or just really really really ignorant. It's disgusting either way.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 27, 2016 15:05:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ross on Nov 27, 2016 16:55:06 GMT -5
In tallying up the good and bad points of Fidel Castro what column do his long speech's go in?
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 27, 2016 19:45:43 GMT -5
Listen, it is very simple. Maybe he was good man, maybe he was bad, it really doesn't matter. He was politician. He was president. As president you have a job to make your people live good. If you have some foreign factor and if you are good politician, you have to find solution that will be best for your nation. It is easy for someone in Serbia, France, Australia...to say, yeah, he was great, he said-fuck you to American capitalist pigs. But how his nation lived after that? So, I don't give a shit about his ideas for better world or his personality etc. I've never met him anyway and I can not say if he was good or bad man in personal life. But he was not just Fidel Castro, in that case we wouldn't even hear about him. He was Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba. And we can only judge him as president. Maybe he meant good but it's not in what you say, it's in what you do. And he was terrible president. It is easy to idealize him when you're living 2000,3000...miles away from Cuba and wear Castro t-shirt but imagine living there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 15:18:46 GMT -5
Are we seriously discussing Cuba's government here? I mean, no one here will be 100% right in that sense because we fuckin' don't live in Cuba, aye mate? Also, the only Cuban that ever happened to escape from there went to my own country and was pretty much asking for help because of the situation there. 400 g of chicken meat ain't something you expect to last for an entire month to an entire family, amirite?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 16:04:35 GMT -5
Defending Castro... What's next... Stalin wasn't all bad and Hitler had a great personality, right?
|
|
|
Post by Manualex on Nov 28, 2016 16:08:05 GMT -5
Defending Castro... What's next... Stalin wasn't all bad and Hitler had a great personality, right? Pol Pot and Pinochet werent that bad either...
|
|
|
Post by Ross on Nov 28, 2016 18:57:50 GMT -5
He wore a beard well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 20:55:37 GMT -5
Defending Castro... What's next... Stalin wasn't all bad and Hitler had a great personality, right? Stalin liberated parts of Europe and Hitler created jobs in the 1930's....
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Nov 29, 2016 6:41:13 GMT -5
Defending Castro... What's next... Stalin wasn't all bad and Hitler had a great personality, right? Stalin liberated parts of Europe and Hitler created jobs in the 1930's.... Let's not forget Hitler's very meticulous attention to getting the trains running on time.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 29, 2016 6:53:42 GMT -5
Es un bandito.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Nov 29, 2016 6:55:10 GMT -5
Defending Castro... What's next... Stalin wasn't all bad and Hitler had a great personality, right? Stalin liberated parts of Europe and Hitler created jobs in the 1930's.... Hahahahaha, liberated. There is an old WWII saying that no matter who won the fight between Germany and Russia, all the people and nations between Berlin and Moscow were going to lose out big time. Dark times coming.
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 29, 2016 10:20:44 GMT -5
I don't want to defend Stalin but Red Army liberated my country. Altough Tito said Stalin to fuck off pretty soon, even if we stayed under Stalin's control, that would be better life than that in 1941-1945(more than 1.000.000 Serbs were killed in those 4 years).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 14:00:44 GMT -5
I don't want to defend Stalin but Red Army liberated my country. Altough Tito said Stalin to fuck off pretty soon, even if we stayed under Stalin's control, that would be better life than that in 1941-1945(more than 1.000.000 Serbs were killed in those 4 years). Without Stalin the US/Canada/England would have never landed in Normandy.
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 29, 2016 17:50:59 GMT -5
No, he looked like member of 1D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 18:02:05 GMT -5
No, he looked like member of 1D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 22:10:53 GMT -5
This guy's saying what matters the most, end of discussion. Now take your beers and git out, thanks a bunch.
|
|
|
Post by KRRRRRRR on Dec 1, 2016 0:43:33 GMT -5
I studied Castro a bit, and took a class in US foreign relations in regard to Latin America. Castro was interesting to say the least. He came to power because of legitimate grievances. He remained in power through illegitimate means. <snip> This quoted post is the one of the only posts rooted in actual fact. A lot of the rest of the comments are largely driven by the west's propaganda machine and red scaring with blow offs of the man based on lack of knowledge and an inability to grasp history's totality that this very difficult and complex man lived. Some of the praise is similarly near sighted too. Let's be clear on one thing, Castro was no saint by any means. What I cannot call him is a despot. He did commit crimes and he lacked the ability to empathize or reason with his opposition. He was a hard leftist (this does not mean liberal) national who wanted his country to be out from under the thumb of imperialism and capitalism that he saw destroying his country's liberty from the inside. He was also vehemently anti-racist/anti-apartheid. They say Cuba was the worst country to be a racist in during Castro's height. However, he went about it wrong and became corrupted by his own wills. His alliance with the Soviet Union was easily his biggest mistake as it was tantamount to western suicide at the time and his country paid the price for entirely too long. That being said, Cuba was in dire straits at the time. They needed help and kowtowing to the US, who are NOT the great savior that American exceptionalism tries to convey would've been seen as a massive fuck you to those who supported the revolution and capitulation would've been suicide for Castro. The Soviets took advantage of this and ushered in an even worse situation. The cost was enormous and as stated, Cuba barely recovered. The United States refused Cuba its sovereignty. Castro took it by force. Also, read up on Castro/Cuba's involvement in Angola, which was a struggle against a racist regime (South Africa) and a REAL tyrant (Mobutu) that the United States backed. The entire reason for the United States' proxy wars and CIA bullshit in South America was largely all about containment so control and influence could be maintained. A lot of this was instigated because of the real grievances that Castro helped bring to light in South America. Heaven forbid the US (under Presidents of all parties), are unable to wield absolute shadow control over sovereign nations! Many will point to all of the Cubans fleeing him. There is a reason for that. This was Cuba's entire right wing that were all supporters of Batista, who was more of an authoritarian dictator than Castro and was the reason for the Cuban Revolution in the first place. He was also a kleptocrat who stole from his own people for his own gain. There's a reason why some good people turn to philosophies like Communism and Batista is an archetypal reason. The ones who fled were the opponents of Castro in the revolution. Batista ruled by decree and was the classic Latin American dictator. People regularly forget that even more fled Batista than fled Castro in the years prior to the revolution. This is because of the force of Castro's personality that he is remembered as he is. Batista was a fool and the tyrant and is largely forgotten by anyone outside of Latin America. As usual with many people who gain entirely too much power, they become victims of their own personality. The world should not mourn his death though, he lost that possibility long ago. He became a caricature and the grievances against him were in many cases legitimate, but he should not be entirely condemned either. I firmly believe that had Castro not aligned with the Soviets, the history may be a lot different and Batista's supporters largely marginalized instead of portrayed as victims rather than enablers.
|
|