This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
«13

Comments

  • edited February 2008
    Congratulations to the man. He has run a country for fifty years and kept the populace happy and healthy, even with such an oppressive neighbor.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • edited February 2008
    Congratulations to the man. He has run a country for fifty years and kept the populace happy and healthy, even with such an oppressive neighbor.
    You're an idiot. A country where government employees get paid $19 per month and where people risk death by hopping in glorified bathtubs to try to sail to America. Yeah... what a great place. The ONLY thing that has kept Cuba propped up is the huge amount of American dollars being sent there every month by relatives in the United States. Don't kid yourself.

    The simple truth is that Cuba is a stagnant shithole. It's got great potential, but the spat between the U.S. and Cuba has resulted in the country lagging significantly behind where it could be. You can argue who is to blame, but don't think that Fidel has created a utopia.

    Fidel seized control of labor unions, expelled religion and imprisoned thousands of political prisoners (up to 100,000 at one time). Violations of human rights have been extensive and extremely serious in Castro's Cuba, particularly in the case of detainees and political prisoners. Many have been assassinated, while thousands have been beaten, tortured physically and mentally, forced into hard labor, and locked into isolation cells (tapiadas). In Cuba there are two types of acute discrimination that constitute in fact an apartheid: one is political/ideological in nature and the other strictly economic.

    So yeah... this guy is great. And you sir, are a moron.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • expelled religion
    He did one good thing.
  • edited February 2008
    He did one good thing.
    You're just another hypocritical libertarian. :-)
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Sounds familar. Guantanamo bay anyone.
  • edited February 2008
    Sounds familar. Guantanamo bay anyone.
    You do understand that Fidel is not at war with his own people, don't you? The people at Guantanamo are enemy combatants. There's a big difference. I'm not saying that everything about Guantanamo is morally acceptable, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your equating the two.

    Besides... the original poster suggested that Fidel was superior to the USA. Insomuch as you are equating the two, thank you for pointing out how wrong the original poster was. We may disagree as to why he's wrong, but we obviously agree that he was.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited February 2008
    expelled religion
    He did one good thing.
    I wouldn't say that's a good thing.
    Post edited by Ametto on
  • The explosive growth that Cuba will have once it is opened up will illustrate just how much Castro held it back.
  • This should end well.
  • edited February 2008
    You do understand that Fidel is not at war with his own people, don't you? The people at Guantanamo are enemy combatants. There's a big difference.
    Which is?
    Though we can safely assume Kilarney is wrong on this point, I agree with Thaed. I'd like to see how Cuba changes compared to other nations in a similar situation. Being as it is so close to America and having relatively untouched natural resources would be a big factor wouldn't you say?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Sounds familar. Guantanamo bay anyone.
    You do understand that Fidel is not at war with his own people, don't you? The people at Guantanamo are enemy combatants. There's a big difference. I'm not saying that everything about Guantanamo is morally acceptable, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your equating the two.

    Besides... the original poster suggested that Fidel was superior to the USA. Insomuch as you are equating the two, thank you for pointing out how wrong the original poster was. We may disagree as to why he's wrong, but we obviously agree that he was.
    Enemy combatants? Is that the term the US uses when describing it's own troops that are held by other countries?...I doubt it. And how long do they plan on keeping those individuals behind bars without any kind of trial?
  • edited February 2008
    Though we can safely assume Kilarney is wrong on this point,
    I like how you dodged the attack on your original argument entirely by focusing on an argument involving two other people.

    Let me explain the difference. (I can't believe that I actually have to do this.) Guantanamo is made up of foreigners who are trying to destroy the United States by violent acts. Cuba's political prisoners are Cubans who are advocating for a democratic government. Do you see the difference? Please tell me that you're intelligent enough not to equate the two.

    Note: I'm not saying that I agree entirely with Guantanamo. I'm just not so desperate to glorify a tyrant that I can see the differences.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • I'm going to play the devil's advocate:

    Most would argue that the "enemy combatants" of the US seek to destroy it's government and policies and since Castro has been in power the US government has been trying to destroy him and his government via violent acts as well (I.e. assassination attempts). What gives them the right to do this? Is this right any different than those who fight against the US? If a large number of US troops were capture in Cuba during some covert op, would the US and the world consider those captured to be "enemy combatants" seeking to destroy Cuba and think no more of it? Unlikely!
  • Most would argue that the "enemy combatants" of the US seek to destroy it's government and policies and since Castro has been in power the US government has been trying to destroy him and his government via violent acts as well (I.e. assassination attempts). What gives them the right to do this? Is this right any different than those who fight against the US? If a large number of US troops were capture in Cuba during some covert op, would the US and the world consider those captured to be "enemy combatants" seeking to destroy Cuba and think no more of it? Unlikely!
    I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Could you try to clarify?
  • What do you mean? What do you need clarification on?

    I noticed I said "capture" instead of "captured"...but beyond that I don't know what you need me to clarify?
  • I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. Could you try to clarify?
    I think what he is trying to say is that calling Guantanamo prisoners "enemy combatants" doesn't make it OK for being held there. His example is that if Cuba captured US troops during a covert op and held them prisoners, the US will not just sit around and let them there just for being called "enemy combatants" by Cuba
  • Exactly. Thank you Double Z.
  • edited February 2008
    This is not a debate about Guantanamo! I love how you guys are deriding Guantanamo in one breath, and saying how Fidel is great in the other breath.

    Zombie, your argument makes less sense than Omnutia's - and that's saying a lot. If a large number of US troops were caught in Cuba and were involved in covert ops - the world would consider them to be enemy combatants. Trust me.

    Can we get back on track here?

    Fidel is a tyrant. I'm shocked at those who applaud him because he gives his citizens decent health care and a good life expectancy. (If spending $250 per year/per person is good health care - that's what some African countries spend.) Are you all so myopic that you ignore all of the humanitarian violations? Can you please answer this question Omnutia?

    Also, Omnutia... if you could only live in either the US or Cuba (with no special privileges), which would you choose?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • I have not said Castro is great in any of my statements. What I am trying do is to show examples of how the US uses terms and ideas to make them look like less of an “evil” government. Saying “enemy combatants” instead of “prisoners of war” is just one example of how they like to spin things.

    The US government likes to make it sound like all their actions are justified and humane. They say they went to war in Iraq “against the government” not the people. They say they went into remove a threat to world peace and to liberate the people of that country. But in reality it was all about the oil and a personal vendetta that Bush had against Saddam for trying to kill his Daddy. The whole 911 connection and the WMD thing was a joke.

    Now, let me ask you this: Why did the US not just go into Cuba and go to war against “Castro and his government” if liberating oppressed people is such a big concern? Because there’s no real momentary reward (i.e. oil), that’s why!

    So the point I’m trying to make is this: If the US government wants to pretend that they are the world police and feel they need to help those in need by toppling dictatorships and terrorists leaders, then their inaction when it comes to Cuba and Castro makes them partially responsible for the conditions that the Cubans have lived in. Worst yet are the sanctions they had against Cuba, this too further punished the people.

    I agree that Castro was an asshole to his people, but was not the US government equally as bad for not stepping in to help the people of a neighboring country?

    If I had a reputation of helping people and I saw you beating the shit out of someone, but decided to just walk away, IMO I’m just as bad for not trying to help.
  • You're saying that the US uses too much aggression and then argue that we should have invaded Cuba? Care to clarify this argument?
  • I asked "why" they didn't choose to invade Cuba. I pointed out that their selective aggression is never truly done to help the people of the world and if it was they would have helped the Cubans. Therefore, by not helping they are partial responsible.

    It would be different if the US didn't get involved in the affairs of other countries, but that's not the case. I'm asking why they didn't get involved in Cuba, but did in Iraq?
  • You're treating Cuba like it is an island unto itself. Cuba was a prized possession of the Soviets. Invading Cuba would have in all likelihood lead to nuclear war. By the time the cold war ended, Fidel was old. It made more sense to wait.

    That's why we didn't invade. Believe me, we would have liked to.
  • And if Iraq had nukes or similar WMDs as the US claimed, could they not have fired a few off when the US began it's invasion? Why were they not scared about nuclear war in this case? Was it because the knew it wouldn't reached the US?
  • edited February 2008
    And if Iraq had nukes or similar WMDs as the US claimed, could they not have fired a few off when the US began it's invasion? Why were they not scared about nuclear war in this case? Was it because the knew it wouldn't reached the US?
    I believe the idea was that Iraq was working on refining radioactive material for weapons grade explosives. Also, Iraq did not really have a great past when it came to weapons like these. Saddam used mustard and sarin nerve gas against the Iranians during their war in the mid 1980's. It was not really a far off idea that Saddam could have been developing WMD's. However, there was no conclusive evidence that he was further developing WMD's after the Gulf War. Also, just because you have weapons grade nuclear material doesn't mean you have effective ways to launch/detonate them. While many middle eastern countries may have nuclear programs, they are very far off from developing ICBM's or similar weapons platforms which would endanger the continental U.S. The main danger we have from these programs is we are afraid they could use the nuclear material for a briefcase or "dirty bomb". Much smaller in power than an ICBM but something that definitely could take out half a city or more.

    This is one of the major reasons why Cuba was so important. Ever hear of the Cuban missile crisis? Yeah, the Soviets thought it would be a good idea to park a few ballistic missles on that little island not too far from the U.S coast...We were a mere hair's edge away from going into nuclear war.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • LOL

    We are definitely going out of topic here. I do wonder now that Fidel is gone if his brother, Raul, is the next president how much thing are really going to change, will Fidel keep a tight grip on the presidency. Or will Raul finally turn around and will try to make some sort of agreement with the US.
  • edited February 2008
    And what was the US's response to the threat of missles so close to their shore?
    Post edited by zombie a gogo on
  • edited February 2008
    I'm kinda torn on the Cuba or America thing. I could take my life in the direction of simple happiness if I lived in Cuba or live for ultimate aspiration in America. Could go either way.
    I would actually say that Guantanamo bay is worse than Cuba's political prisons. It all comes back to the whole idea of America being destroyed from within (can anyone find that picture of the dollar bills and the paper clips?) where America (or just the administration and it's followers) creates this demonic enemy that has to be stopped by any means and can then use those means for the oppression of their own people (if someone wants to give an example, go ahead.). At least with a tyrant you know where you stand.
    I would probably supported the war in Iraq if America had said "We're going to get rid of Saddam Husein because he is an evil man." but then that asks the question: why Saddam Husein?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • Fidel is a tyrant. I'm shocked at those who applaud him because he gives his citizens decent health care and a good life expectancy. (If spending $250 per year/per person is good health care - that's what some African countries spend.)
    Do countries that have free healthcare for their citizens necessarily have great healthcare? If I was mortally wounded, would I want to be treated in Cuba or the US? I'm wondering if the US switched to free healthcare for all its citizens, would healthcare treatment be worse? Does it destroy incentive for doctors to practice in the US?
  • edited February 2008

    I would actually say that Guantanamo bay is worse than Cuba's political prisons.
    Would you prefer if they were classified as enemy saboteurs and shot? You might want to crack open a history book and read about the Cuban Missile Crisis and about Axis attempts at sabotage on American soil during World War 2.
    At least with a tyrant you know where you stand.
    So, better the evil you know that anything else?
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited February 2008
    You're an idiot.
    So what does his intelligence have to do with his opinion?
    A country where government employees get paid $19 per month
    Alright, and you're saying this is a bad thing because, they're payed to little? to much? Does that make Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong the best head of state in the world or the worst?
    and where people risk death by hopping in glorified bathtubs to try to sail to America.
    I'm sure I can find someone trying to swim the way, and I am sure I could find someone trying to swim the English channel
    Yeah... what a great place.
    You're right, it is a nice place, I was there a few years ago for my cousin's wedding, but have you ever been?
    The ONLY thing that has kept Cuba propped up is the huge amount of American dollars being sent there every month by relatives in the United States.
    Because the only real money is money from the stats, and the money from the vacationers really means nothing, nor all of their billions of dollars in trade.
    Don't kid yourself.
    Don't worry, I believe in multiple perspectives
    The simple truth is that Cuba is a stagnant shithole.
    Oh! Random name calling! Yay! We're both so mature now!
    It's got great potential, but the spat between the U.S. and Cuba has resulted in the country lagging significantly behind where it could be.
    Because you only need to be the best of buddies with the States to be a first world nation! Other problems they could have faced have no effects if you're friends with the States
    You can argue who is to blame, but don't think that Fidel has created a utopia.
    Who's saying he created a utopia? But he did keep a nation for direct foreign rule
    Fidel seized control of labor unions,
    By "seized" you mean they gave him control?
    expelled religion
    That's not quite right, he removed it from the government, so you don't have your leaders talking about how god talks to them
    and imprisoned thousands of political prisoners (up to 100,000 at one time).
    And that is a horrible thing, but at least these people are alive, unlike some in the States
    Violations of human rights have been extensive and extremely serious in Castro's Cuba, particularly in the case of detainees and political prisoners.
    Isn't this the kettle calling the pot black?

    Actually no I take that back, Castro lives up to treaties he signs
    Many have been assassinated, while thousands have been beaten, tortured physically and mentally, forced into hard labor, and locked into isolation cells (tapiadas).
    Again, we're almost back to the kettle and the pot, we only need to switch forced labour with kidnappings
    In Cuba there are two types of acute discrimination that constitute in fact an apartheid: one is political/ideological in nature and the other strictly economic.
    Oh go old-- wait we're still talking about Cuba aren't we?
    So yeah... this guy is great.
    Yes, he is great, that doesn't mean he's a good person, just a great person.
    And you sir, are a moron.
    So says the one undermining his own credibility with such immature diction.

    Perhaps you can seal up your arguments and present them again?
    Post edited by Page on
Sign In or Register to comment.