http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/02/19/castro/index.html
I'm hoping the next person who steps up to take his place will be better. Optimistic thinking, but highly doubtful. Wow! This should be front page headline news. This guy has been in power for most of my life, and suddenly just resigns!
I've followed Castro and Cuba over the years, and I think he's done good things for Cuba, although totalitarian rule always covers a lot of weakness.
I think Raul will not last long. Typically, after many years of strong leadership by one person, a country's politics are very messy for awhile, examples: Ceuaşescu in Romania, Arafat in Palestine., Peron in Argentina, Hussein in Iraq. Unless there is a strong constitutional base that will supercede personal politics, Raul will have a hard time keeping power.
Also, Castro has always modeled himself the quintessential socialist. So why then would he hand power over to his brother? Sounds more like a monarchy (his big enemy) to me!
| Quote: |
| Wow! This should be front page headline news. This guy has been in power for most of my life, and suddenly just resigns! |
Actually it really isn't that big a deal because he hasn't been able to rule for a lot of the past few months anyway due to health problems. Right now Cuba isn't much different at all, the people didn't even hold rallies or anything. It was just a normal day in life.
I think most people view Raul as an interim ruler, not as a replacement. There are high hopes of a democratic system being set up in Cuba and it seems possible, but it might take a few years. America probably won't lift its embargo until a democracy is set up, so in reality nothing has changed at all right now. This does mark an important part in history though just because it officially ends Castro's reign.[quote="MYP415"] | Quote: |
I think most people view Raul as an interim ruler, not as a replacement. |
Yeah, castro being a socialist, would not keep the power within his family. Long live Castro... he did good for Cuba.
I am sure he will be exerting some influence through his brother for quite some time. I hope Cuba can get through this. I need to visit there before he dies, then that is when the real test begins...
The problem with Cuba's image in the United States is that the latter's media has always portrayed the Cubans as evil and Castro as the villainous leader. When people dont get a balanced view, it is easy to spot problems where non exist. That said, Cuba would definitely have had some problems, just as every country does. And, in wishing for the whole world to become a better place to live in, let us also hope that Cuba continues to stay on the path of progress.
An interesting aside: The movie 'Sicko' by Moore definitely presented some interesting insights into the Cuban healthcare system and portrayed it as better than the US one. I just hope the Americans dont blindly follow their covertly-government sponsored media and do analyze facts for themselves.
| ganesh wrote: |
| The problem with Cuba's image in the United States is that the latter's media has always portrayed the Cubans as evil and Castro as the villainous leader. When people dont get a balanced view, it is easy to spot problems where non exist. That said, Cuba would definitely have had some problems, just as every country does. And, in wishing for the whole world to become a better place to live in, let us also hope that Cuba continues to stay on the path of progress. |
Pretty sure very few people here think all Cubans are evil. Personally, I've never met a fellow American who really cared about Cuba. You speak the truth about Castro, but that's obviously just remnants of the Cold War ideology. Nobody I've ever met here has any sort of grudge or whatever you wish to call it against Cubans in general. I don't really see the media doing that either toward average Cubans. The media always hounded Castro...but again, remnants of the Cold War and personally I think he should have been hounded all these years.
| ganesh wrote: |
| An interesting aside: The movie 'Sicko' by Moore definitely presented some interesting insights into the Cuban healthcare system and portrayed it as better than the US one. I just hope the Americans dont blindly follow their covertly-government sponsored media and do analyze facts for themselves. |
Not really. The movie was full of propaganda, lies, and false facts. Yes, Cuba's healthcare is available to all Cubans....but you better hope you don't need more than an aspirin or its tough shit. Not to say the US has good healthcare, but the comparison was biased in Moore's film....as it always is 
Please don't take the guy serious on what he says. He's in it for personal gain or he would be giving at least some of the millions of dollars he raked in to help people afford healthcare. I think you should analyze his "facts" as well as you think others should analyze the government's. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Not really. The movie was full of propaganda, lies, and false facts. Yes, Cuba's healthcare is available to all Cubans....but you better hope you don't need more than an aspirin or its tough shit. Not to say the US has good healthcare, but the comparison was biased in Moore's film....as it always is Please don't take the guy serious on what he says. He's in it for personal gain or he would be giving at least some of the millions of dollars he raked in to help people afford healthcare. I think you should analyze his "facts" as well as you think others should analyze the government's. |
Well, let's analyse the facts then. Here's some useful indicators:- Mortality for 7yrs and under (ie number of kids who die before age 8 ) - Cuba 7 per 1000. US 8 per 1000
- Life expectancy - Cuba 75(m) and 79(f). US 75(m) and 80(f)
- Infant Mortality Rate - Cuba 5 per 1000. US 7 per 1000.
- Number of doctors per 1000 inhabitents - Cuba 5.91. US 2.56.
Cuba also attracts around 20,000 'health tourists' each year who choose to go to Cuba for operations, including eye surgery, cosmetic surgery and treatment for serious conditions such as Parkinson's and MS. Many of these 'tourists' are from the US.
(Source - Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba )
That doesn't sound too bad to me.
Before Castro approximately 8% of the population had access to healthcare. Now everyone does. Remember also that this is against a backdrop where nearly half of Cuba's physicians (who lived almost exclusively in the 'rich' areas) left after the revolution, and where the US has had a crippling embargo in place since the revolution.Castro has done a lot of good things for Cuba, starting with standing up against 'big brother' USA. America tends to condemn any leader / country that doesn't do exactly what they want.... but thism ight be another discussion :shock:
Anyways I do think he made a good descicion, is it a couple of years to late. As for Raoul, who knows, as interm yes, long term: I don't think so, although most Cubans appear to be happy with him
| tijn01 wrote: |
Castro has done a lot of good things for Cuba, starting with standing up against 'big brother' USA. America tends to condemn any leader / country that doesn't do exactly what they want.... but thism ight be another discussion 
Anyways I do think he made a good descicion, is it a couple of years to late. As for Raoul, who knows, as interm yes, long term: I don't think so, although most Cubans appear to be happy with him |
I mean, he did harbor nuclear bombs for the Soviets when they were our biggest enemy =/ Two countries in war (especially when there's the threat of nukes) ALWAYS condemn others who join their opposition...that country being America in this instance is irrelevant. Of course we condemned Castro for siding with the Soviets in an era like the Cold War. Any halfway rational country in our position would have done the same. Obviously after the war, we could have actually done something besides ignore them and put embargos on them etc., but not a whole lot can be done about the past. Unfortunately, we have a single candidate who actually feels the need to sit down and have a discussion with their government. The others simply want to continue the trend of the past 30 years...People are actually standing up for this guy?
This man is on the level of Sadaam, Bin Laden, and other murderous tyrants.
| Liu wrote: |
People are actually standing up for this guy?
This man is on the level of Sadaam, Bin Laden, and other murderous tyrants. |
A ridiculous comparison. For a start Bin Laden was/has never been a head of state - he is simply a relation to the Saudi Royal family who heads a terrorist network. Sadam was a US puppet for most of his rule, even though he was a murderous tyrant, and his main concern was retaining power. Castro was/is a committed revolutionary communist, and his achievements in Cuba speak for themselves.
Yes, he was no democrat, but that is at least partly the fault of the US. The numerous attempts at assassination, terrorist attacks, invasion and subversion, coupled to a hugely damaging trade/economic embargo, meant that Cuba could never develop a 'normal' system of government and economic management, which is a necessary precursor for democratic elections.
He had little choice other than to turn to the Soviets for help - the US had already made it quite plain that they wanted him either dead or out of power, and were prepared to invade the country to achieve that aim. What was Castro supposed to do? Surrender?
Last edited by Bikerman on Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:03 am; edited 2 times in total | Liu wrote: |
People are actually standing up for this guy?
This man is on the level of Sadaam, Bin Laden, and other murderous tyrants. |
Yeah I definitely wouldn't go that far lol | Liu wrote: |
People are actually standing up for this guy?
This man is on the level of Sadaam, Bin Laden, and other murderous tyrants. |
You need to look at this more closely, Liu. Having spent two decades in Latin America, I can certainly understand sympathies for people like Castro, Guevara or Chaves if the alternatives are Pinochet or Somoza.I couldn't say if he is a real tyrant or not... people seems to be happy in Cuba. They live longer than us and life seems to be cheaper than in occidental countries.
I renember when I saw the last Michael Moore's documentary named Sicko, it showed Cuba as a great country...
Moreover, if you think that Castro is a tyrant, I don't know how we could qualify some Occidental presidents...who maybe have more blood in their hand that this man...
As someone who does value human rights and civil liberties, I would file Fidel Castro as a tyrant, but then there are tyrants and tyrants ... and considering the long line of Latin American dictators and caudillos, Castro was certainly a step up from Batista.
There is little doubt that he was a tyrant. A tyrant is a leader wielding unopposed power in a state or organisation. Castro qualifies under that definition. The point is, however, that he had an agenda other than personal gain and wealth, and, to a large extent, that agenda was realised. When Cuba is compared with other '3rd world' countries, the achievements of the Castro regime are clear.
| liljp617 wrote: |
| tijn01 wrote: | Castro has done a lot of good things for Cuba, starting with standing up against 'big brother' USA. America tends to condemn any leader / country that doesn't do exactly what they want.... but theism might be another discussion
Anyways I do think he made a good decision, is it a couple of years too late. As for Raoul, who knows, as interim yes, long term: I don't think so, although most Cubans appear to be happy with him |
I mean, he did harbor nuclear bombs for the Soviets when they were our biggest enemy =/ Two countries in war (especially when there's the threat of nukes) ALWAYS condemn others who join their opposition...that country being America in this instance is irrelevant. Of course we condemned Castro for siding with the Soviets in an era like the Cold War. Any halfway rational country in our position would have done the same. Obviously after the war, we could have actually done something besides ignore them and put embargoes on them etc., but not a whole lot can be done about the past. Unfortunately, we have a single candidate who actually feels the need to sit down and have a discussion with their government. The others simply want to continue the trend of the past 30 years... |
(I hope you don't mind but I fixed the spelling)Well, I don't consider the Cold War an actual war. The countries involved in it never attacked each other physically (thankfully). Anyway, when you compare him to other dictators in history, he is "better" then most of them. He is definitely a tyrant. I don't like him personally, however, I have never met or talked to him so it doesn't matter either way. Still, you can't trust everything you hear on the news. The stations may be biased, the government could be manipulating information, etc... | medievalman26 wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | tijn01 wrote: | Castro has done a lot of good things for Cuba, starting with standing up against 'big brother' USA. America tends to condemn any leader / country that doesn't do exactly what they want.... but theism might be another discussion
Anyways I do think he made a good decision, is it a couple of years too late. As for Raoul, who knows, as interim yes, long term: I don't think so, although most Cubans appear to be happy with him |
I mean, he did harbor nuclear bombs for the Soviets when they were our biggest enemy =/ Two countries in war (especially when there's the threat of nukes) ALWAYS condemn others who join their opposition...that country being America in this instance is irrelevant. Of course we condemned Castro for siding with the Soviets in an era like the Cold War. Any halfway rational country in our position would have done the same. Obviously after the war, we could have actually done something besides ignore them and put embargoes on them etc., but not a whole lot can be done about the past. Unfortunately, we have a single candidate who actually feels the need to sit down and have a discussion with their government. The others simply want to continue the trend of the past 30 years... |
(I hope you don't mind but I fixed the spelling)Well, I don't consider the Cold War an actual war. The countries involved in it never attacked each other physically (thankfully). Anyway, when you compare him to other dictators in history, he is "better" then most of them. He is definitely a tyrant. I don't like him personally, however, I have never met or talked to him so it doesn't matter either way. Still, you can't trust everything you hear on the news. The stations may be biased, the government could be manipulating information, etc... |
Sure. I was just saying our dislike of him during the war was somewhat justified...considering our entire nation was thought to be in major danger of being wiped off the planet and he supported that. Like I said, we could have done better at fixing what happened, but not much can be done about the past.I am hoping to head to Cuba this spring
