0
TrophyHusband

castro resigns

Recommended Posts

Quote

So you think that Obama would execute thousands of people if it weren't for US checks and balances? You don't think there is any difference between having some socialist policies and having completely communist government?


The true answer is, I don't know. Its very hard to answer the what ifs. But because of the similarity in the message, I definately see it as a possibility that if not for the U.S. checks and balances, if he were to gain power he would.

I am well aware that most if not all European counties embrace different levels of Soicaliam without it leading to mass bloodshed. But there is no way for me to know if given the opportunity, Obama would end his socialist policies at what he says in his speeches, (Which still would be very bad) or if he would try for a completely Communist government. And likewise if he indeed was able to accomplish a completely Communist government, if like Che and the Castros, he would be of the opinion that the end justify's the means. ( regardless of how many innocent people he had to kill for no other reason, other than political dissent).
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I find it humorous that you think this is due to brainwashing because indeed I believe the facts are quite the contrary. I recall as a very young student being in school and hearing the teacher say that true Communism was the fairest deal becaue everybody got the same, but that because of corruption, it would always turn out differently. As grammar school student, I listened to the teacher and analyzed it enough to find that I actually completely disagreed with what they were trying to brainwash me with.



I have exactly the same problems with university level economics classes. Some economic models and examples are often over-simplified to the extent that they are no longer realistic, and amount to little more than pro-capitalism propaganda. That is not to say that there is nothing good about capitalism. Clearly capitalism offers some benefits. But it also has its own inherent weaknesses and problems compared to other economic models. Socialism is the same; it has strengths and weaknesses. The problem lies in adopting an all or nothing approach. Both capitalism and socialism work well on paper where certain economic forces can be disregarded in order to simplify the model. Unfortunately, in the real world, those forces will continue to exist and have an effect, regardless of how things appeared on paper.

The sooner people realize that it's about the most efficient use of available resources, and not about who's right and who's wrong, the better off everyone will be.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The true answer is, I don't know. Its very hard to answer the what ifs. But because of the similarity in the message, I definately see it as a possibility that if not for the U.S. checks and balances, if he were to gain power he would.

I am well aware that most if not all European counties embrace different levels of Soicaliam without it leading to mass bloodshed. But there is no way for me to know if given the opportunity, Obama would end his socialist policies at what he says in his speeches, (Which still would be very bad) or if he would try for a completely Communist government. And likewise if he indeed was able to accomplish a completely Communist government, if like Che and the Castros, he would be of the opinion that the end justify's the means. ( regardless of how many innocent people he had to kill for no other reason, other than political dissent).



Socialism/capitalism is an economic dichotomy. Dictatorship/democracy is a governmental dichotomy. While governments and economics are inherently intertwined, there is no fixed manner in which they are connected. Capitalism and dictatorship can be paired, as well as socialism and democracy. There is also the possibility of socialism and dictatorship, and democracy and capitalism. One type of economy does not imply a particular type of government.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO, economic sanctions have harmed Cuba far more than Castro has.

Without sanctions, Cuba would have most likely adopted a hybrid socialist/capitalist economy by now, like China and other economically successful countries have. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure.

Our sanctions are stictly about a political statement. They have not kept other countries from trading with Cuba.

It's like any other country with a dictator who's people are hurting. We could dump tons of goods into the country, and the dictator doles it out to the cronies first, and then, possibly gives a small portion to the masses.
It's all about keeping the people under his thumb.

Castro's philosophy cannot allow the people to have a taste of economic freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

reply]

Socialism/capitalism is an economic dichotomy. Dictatorship/democracy is a governmental dichotomy. While governments and economics are inherently intertwined, there is no fixed manner in which they are connected. Capitalism and dictatorship can be paired, as well as socialism and democracy. There is also the possibility of socialism and dictatorship, and democracy and capitalism. One type of economy does not imply a particular type of government.


This will be my last response for the night atleast because its time to chill out and play pool.
I know that its possible to have democracy with with significant degrees of Socialism. The European countries pretty much span many different levels of significant Socialism with democracy. I wouldn't even say that the U.S. has a totally Capitalist system, as many of our utilities such as electricity, gas and telecom are loaded with government regulation. The fact that somebody in the U.S. with a taxable income of 5 times as much is not paying the same in taxes but infact paying more than 5 times as much is a definate significant degree of socialism.
On the whole I would say that when comparing first world countries alone, the U.S. is definately the most capitalist, as well as the most successful. To go a little further, I would say that England comes in a very clear second place to the most capitalist first world countries but not necessarily the second most sucessful.
In any case before I go off in a tangent. I will state that I do not believe its possible to have a forced ruthless Dictatorship combined with Capitalism. This I believe only exists in theory and a weak theory at that. Imagine this a Ruthless, Power hungry Dictator that wants to enable the people under his rule to have choices of where to work or to open their own businesses if they desire and have an economy fourish on its own through competition. Can you think of any example where this has occurred? Does it even make any sense to you? To me it doesn't.

Cheers and Gueten Nacht
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

On the whole I would say that when comparing first world countries alone, the U.S. is definately the most capitalist, as well as the most successful.



Depending on whether you use IMF, WB or CIA numbers, the US ranks 7th or 9th in the world in terms of GDP per capita.

The US ranks 12th in terms of human development index (i.e. there are eleven countries that are more developed than the United States).

The US ranks 20th in terms of worldwide corruption perception (lower indicates less perceived corruption).

There is little doubt that the United States is a successful country, but we are not the most successful country in the world. Furthermore, there are countries with mixed economies that are more successful.

Quote

I will state that I do not believe its possible to have a forced ruthless Dictatorship combined with Capitalism… Can you think of any example where this has occurred?



Indonesia under Suharto offers one such historical example. Chile under Pinochet offers another. Argentina under Videla was violently pro-capitalism. Capitalism offers no inherent safeguards against dictatorships.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Our sanctions are stictly about a political statement. They have not kept other countries from trading with Cuba.



To an extent this is true. However, Cuba is placed at a severe disadvantage when they are forbidden to trade with the economic superpower ninety miles away.

Quote

It's like any other country with a dictator who's people are hurting. We could dump tons of goods into the country, and the dictator doles it out to the cronies first, and then, possibly gives a small portion to the masses.



It doesn't sound all that different from how a free market works, after all. Just because something is available for sale doesn't mean that the poor automatically have access to it.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

On the whole I would say that when comparing first world countries alone, the U.S. is definately the most capitalist, as well as the most successful.



Depending on whether you use IMF, WB or CIA numbers, the US ranks 7th or 9th in the world in terms of GDP per capita.

The US ranks 12th in terms of human development index (i.e. there are eleven countries that are more developed than the United States).



In terms of physical development, the US has only built out to about 12% of our total area. Fiber is being brought to the prem in many urban homes. Broadband penetration is Europe tops at what...35% in Denmark? Cell phone subscription rates aren't as high as many in Europe, but we also have wireline phone penetration to 100%. European governments seem to have pretty good e-Gov type initiatives, but I don't know enough to gauge if they're proving to be good investments.

Quote

There is little doubt that the United States is a successful country, but we are not the most successful country in the world. Furthermore, there are countries with mixed economies that are more successful.



I disagree. The $14Tr GDP of the US is a testament to that.

Quote

Quote

I will state that I do not believe its possible to have a forced ruthless Dictatorship combined with Capitalism… Can you think of any example where this has occurred?



Indonesia under Suharto offers one such historical example. Chile under Pinochet offers another. Argentina under Videla was violently pro-capitalism. Capitalism offers no inherent safeguards against dictatorships.



Indonesia was riddled with corruption and massive human rights issues under Suharto along with the industrialization. Just because he was pro-West, makes him neither a Capitalist, or a benevolent leader.

Pinochet accomplished a "miracle", in the words of Milton Friedman. However, by removing the "checks and balances", he did not accomplish his goal. Unemployment hit 20+%, poverty rates doubled. It was mixed bag of results until the 1980s.

Videla accomplished nothing of the sort. After the coup, he was not able to implement new economic policies, his own military blocked the move.

>>edited to clean up the formatting<<
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's like any other country with a dictator who's people are hurting. We could dump tons of goods into the country, and the dictator doles it out to the cronies first, and then, possibly gives a small portion to the masses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote

It doesn't sound all that different from how a free market works, after all. Just because something is available for sale doesn't mean that the poor automatically have access to it.

Sadly, the only carrot the people in Cuba get dangled in front of them is day to day subsistence.
Do you think Castro really wants the people to get big screen tvs and satellite systems?
In this country, at least a person can advance their personal agenda. Try that in Cuba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Development is a nebulous term. US has the largest GNP, but does that mean the most developed? Is China really the third most developed nation on earth?
The reference was the human development index. This is one of those things developed by Europeans that Europeans tend to do well on. This doesn't mean however that the "goods" it is based upon are not valid. Broadband penetration is certainly an indicator of development, as is participation in post secondary education (another area the US excels at), but so is adult literacy, homelessness, life expectancy, infant mortality; these are areas The other OECD countries tent to beat US at. Incarceration rates are another area the Europeans tend to look down their noses at US for. From my experience though, most US citizens are not too concerned about this due to the high proportion of inmates that are members of the subculture. The same is true for the murder rate; the Europeans score better, but they seem more concerned about it than the Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The $14Tr GDP of the US is a testament to that.



I don't think GDP in itself is a good measure of a country's economic success, but if we consider it to be, for argument's sake, US GDP is still surpassed by EU GDP. I suppose we could deny that the EU is a single country, but then it would be a little too obvious that we're cherry picking statistics in order to make the US look superior to every other country.

Quote

Indonesia was riddled with corruption and massive human rights issues under Suharto along with the industrialization. Just because he was pro-West, makes him neither a Capitalist, or a benevolent leader.



I agree with everything except that he was not a capitalist. He was that, and actively promoted free markets, to the detriment of his country.

Quote

Pinochet accomplished a "miracle", in the words of Milton Friedman. However, by removing the "checks and balances", he did not accomplish his goal. Unemployment hit 20+%, poverty rates doubled. It was mixed bag of results until the 1980s.



Which reiterates my point.

Quote

Videla accomplished nothing of the sort. After the coup, he was not able to implement new economic policies, his own military blocked the move.



But that doesn't change the fact that violence was used against the people in the name of capitalism and free markets.

I stand by my point that capitalism offers no inherent safeguards against dictatorships. Governments and economics go hand in hand, but they can be combined in many different ways.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sadly, the only carrot the people in Cuba get dangled in front of them is day to day subsistence.
Do you think Castro really wants the people to get big screen tvs and satellite systems?
In this country, at least a person can advance their personal agenda. Try that in Cuba.



I'm not claiming that Castro is the Cuban equivalent of the Dalai Lama or Gandhi. I also don't consider him to be the devil incarnate. Certainly not all Cubans support Castro, but not all Cubans despise him, either. Cuba had a dictator before Castro; why weren't the US concerned about Batista?

At the end of the day, it is not for the US to decide what economic system Cuba chooses.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The $14Tr GDP of the US is a testament to that.



I don't think GDP in itself is a good measure of a country's economic success, but if we consider it to be, for argument's sake, US GDP is still surpassed by EU GDP. I suppose we could deny that the EU is a single country, but then it would be a little too obvious that we're cherry picking statistics in order to make the US look superior to every other country.

.


I spent to much time online yesterday so be aware that just because I don't address every issue on this post or others its not because there is not a rebuttal.
In regards to GDP being the end all of proving a countries success, I don't agree. Population has a lot to do with how high the GDP and the GNP are. However, niether is GDP or GNP per capita. This does not take into account the level of taxation in a country. If somebody makes 125K in the U.S. and ends up with taxable income of 100K and pays 33% Federal tax on that he ends up (not counting state, SS or other taxes) with 102K in his pocket. Now if somebody makes 125K in England or Germany, he may end up with less than 60K. Bottom line is that there is a reason why so many people from all over the world want to come to the U.S.

Also on a unrelated topic somebody previously question why the U.S. didn't have a boycott with the previous dictator in Cuba. That was just an example of people talking about topics they know nothing about. Fulgencio Batista the previous leader was elected as president by the people. The exact years escape me now, but if I remember corrrectly. First he was elected in the 40's then another president served, then in 1953 because of national unrest and his military connection he assumed control. The people were not pleased abourt this and all wanted to bring back the Cuban constitution of 1940, which would basically mean having a free election in which they could choose their leader. But it was not a life or death situation. Most people were still able to live their lives happily, inspite of the political battles.

The bigger danger was Fidel Castro trying to take over the country by force, many knew he was a Communist in disguise (Including the U.S. government) and for that reason the U.S. governent offered Batista milatary asssistance. But because of the Cuban's unhappy with Batista who by this point had become a sitting dictator, by not allowing a free elections, because of this the U.S. pulled their military support of Batista.

As Castro's military movement gained power, without the support the U.S. Batista Fled to the DR in New Years eve of 1959. Seven days later Castro drove tanks into Havana and assumed control.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Sadly, the only carrot the people in Cuba get dangled in front of them is day to day subsistence.
Do you think Castro really wants the people to get big screen tvs and satellite systems?
In this country, at least a person can advance their personal agenda. Try that in Cuba.



I'm not claiming that Castro is the Cuban equivalent of the Dalai Lama or Gandhi. I also don't consider him to be the devil incarnate. Certainly not all Cubans support Castro, but not all Cubans despise him, either. Cuba had a dictator before Castro; why weren't the US concerned about Batista?

At the end of the day, it is not for the US to decide what economic system Cuba chooses.



Not all Cubans support him is an understatement. One that is either made out of ignorance or with an alterior motive. I don't know any Cubans who support him and I think I probably know quite a few more than you. Is it possible that a miniscule miority supports him? sure.
Is it more likely that people trying to suggest he is not the Devil incarnate, are actually pointing to people who can not freely speak out against him for fear of reprisal to themselves or their family? Much more likely.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

At the end of the day, it is not for the US to decide what economic system Cuba chooses.



At the end of the day, the US govt decides which countries to do business with.

Castro seized the property (hotels) of US companies.

The US does business with Marxist regimes all over the world. The US decided not to do business with a thief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In regards to GDP being the end all of proving a countries success, I don't agree.



That's what I said. :)
Quote

However, niether is GDP or GNP per capita. This does not take into account the level of taxation in a country. If somebody makes 125K in the U.S. and ends up with taxable income of 100K and pays 33% Federal tax on that he ends up (not counting state, SS or other taxes) with 102K in his pocket. Now if somebody makes 125K in England or Germany, he may end up with less than 60K. Bottom line is that there is a reason why so many people from all over the world want to come to the U.S.



It is a common misconception that taxes are without benefits to taxpayers. Another common misconception is that the wealthy receive no more benefit from the government than those making less money. It is true that taxes in the US are lower than most other developed nations. However, US taxpayers receive fewer benefits from their government than the citizens of most countries with higher tax rates. For example, many countries offer lower cost, higher quality healthcare via tax funding than is available through private industry in the US.

One also has to take into consideration that there have only been a handful of years in which the US government has operated without a budget deficit. That means the low tax rates are not sustainable without decreasing benefits to taxpayers.

It is not rare for people to emigrate from the US to other developed nations. Additionally, most permanent US immigrants are not emigrating from developed nations.

Quote

Also on a unrelated topic somebody previously question why the U.S. didn't have a boycott with the previous dictator in Cuba. That was just an example of people talking about topics they know nothing about. Fulgencio Batista the previous leader was elected as president by the people. The exact years escape me now, but if I remember corrrectly. First he was elected in the 40's then another president served, then in 1953 because of national unrest and his military connection he assumed control. The people were not pleased abourt this and all wanted to bring back the Cuban constitution of 1940, which would basically mean having a free election in which they could choose their leader. But it was not a life or death situation. Most people were still able to live their lives happily, inspite of the political battles.



Which brings us back to my point that Batista was a dictator, but was not opposed by the US government. Presently, from people I've talked to and read that regularly visit Cuba, people still live their lives happily, in spite of political battles. Of course that's just anecdotal evidence, and media reports tend to be strongly biased in one direction or the other. Without visiting Cuba myself, I'll never know for certain.

Quote

The bigger danger was Fidel Castro trying to take over the country by force, many knew he was a Communist in disguise (Including the U.S. government) and for that reason the U.S. governent offered Batista milatary asssistance. But because of the Cuban's unhappy with Batista who by this point had become a sitting dictator, by not allowing a free elections, because of this the U.S. pulled their military support of Batista.



The US does not always support governments or leaders elected in free elections. Our foreign policy is based on political expedience. Heck we even supported some of the same groups we are now fighting and calling terrorists when they were the enemies of our enemies. The US supported (there is debate regarding how active the support was) the removal of freely elected Allende from power in Chile. Any guesses why that was?

Quote

As Castro's military movement gained power, without the support the U.S. Batista Fled to the DR in New Years eve of 1959. Seven days later Castro drove tanks into Havana and assumed control.



Which replaced one dictator with another dictator.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not claiming that Castro is the Cuban equivalent of the Dalai Lama or Gandhi. I also don't consider him to be the devil incarnate. Certainly not all Cubans support Castro, but not all Cubans despise him, either. Cuba had a dictator before Castro; why weren't the US concerned about Batista?

At the end of the day, it is not for the US to decide what economic system Cuba chooses.



I couldn't agree more.

Quote

Cuba had a dictator before Castro; why weren't the US concerned about Batista?



Perhaps because Batista wasn't a socialist, and he was pro-US relations, and had a close relationship with the US Mafia....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not all Cubans support him is an understatement. One that is either made out of ignorance or with an alterior motive. I don't know any Cubans who support him and I think I probably know quite a few more than you. Is it possible that a miniscule miority supports him? sure.
Is it more likely that people trying to suggest he is not the Devil incarnate, are actually pointing to people who can not freely speak out against him for fear of reprisal to themselves or their family? Much more likely.



Unfortunately, there is no source of reliable, unbiased information without seeing first-hand. It is very easy to find reports claiming he is widely despised or widely loved. Those sources are typically very biased. The first hand reports I have heard from US citizens who have visited Cuba do not paint the same bleak picture that you paint. Talking to Cubans who have immigrated to the US does not offer an unbiased view of Cuba, just like talking to expatriated Americans will not give an unbiased view of America.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



Quote

As Castro's military movement gained power, without the support the U.S. Batista Fled to the DR in New Years eve of 1959. Seven days later Castro drove tanks into Havana and assumed control.



Which replaced one dictator with another dictator.



Again, just picking something quick and easy to respond to because I can't spend all day here. Batista WAS ELECTED and later took power without the election. Castro WAS NEVER ELECTED. There is a huge differnce. Imediately upon taking control by force, Catro roundec up thousands and killed them with little or no trial. It is clearly NOT one dictator replacing another.
Also Cuba is not equivalent to Chile or some Middle Eastern country. U.S. and Cuban politics have always been much more intertwined. Look up and read about the Platt Amendement if you wish.

If you really know this little about the history, you should talk to people who do and then maybe they can help you find some books on the matter that are worth more than toilet paper. If you don't know what you're talking about its really just better to say, "I don't know" rather than trying to wing it as that doesn't really work.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

.



Talking to Cubans who have immigrated to the US does not offer an unbiased view of Cuba, just like talking to expatriated Americans will not give an unbiased view of America.



If the American government was killing people trying to escape and inspite of that 25% of the American population up and left to anywhere else by there, it would be a strong indication that the majority of people really did not like it there.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Presently, from people I've talked to and read that regularly visit Cuba, people still live their lives happily, in spite of political battles. Of course that's just anecdotal evidence, and media reports tend to be strongly biased in one direction or the other. Without visiting Cuba myself, I'll never know for certain.



I spent a month in Cuba in 2003 (mostly Havana) and found this generally to be true. Unless someone publicly was making anti-Castro statements, they lived fairly happily and relatively undisturbed from teh gov't. The older folks seemed content to an extent (I do assume there was fear in not being 'content,' I'm not that naive.) and even spoke fondly of Castro (nickamed "El Caballo," or The Horse) Because of the state of the economy/distribution of wealth (or lack thereof) and other factors, food and consumer goods rationing made things rough - a few eggs per month per family, 4 tampons per months, etc.

Everyone was extremely kind, curious, and accomodating to me during my visit. I was invited into several people's homes for dinner.

I know there are lots of dissidents, some louder than others, but this is the feel I got from my brief visit, loaded with all of the unintentional subjectivity because it's my personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again, just picking something quick and easy to respond to because I can't spend all day here. Batista WAS ELECTED and later took power without the election.



Do you really think it's better that Batista served as an elected official before seizing power without being elected? That is absolutely absurd.

Quote

There is a huge differnce.


Please explain how it is different. Both leaders assumed power without being elected into the position. It is completely irrelevant that Batista had previously served as a legitimate leader. When he was removed from power in the revolution, he was, in fact, a dictator. No amount of historical revision is going to change that. If, in 2011, George W. Bush led a coup to overthrow the US government, and assumed position as leader, that the American people would consider it okay, because he had previously served as an elected president?

Quote

Imediately upon taking control by force, Catro roundec up thousands and killed them with little or no trial. It is clearly NOT one dictator replacing another.

How is it not? Castro, a dictator, overthrew Batista, another dictator. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Quote

Also Cuba is not equivalent to Chile or some Middle Eastern country. U.S. and Cuban politics have always been much more intertwined.



You said you knew of no instances of capitalism and dictatorships going hand in hand. I offered three such examples. I din't claim they were equivalent countries to Cuba. Cuba is a unique island nation rich in culture and history. That culture transcends any government that might be in power at any given time.

I'm not sure that I agree that US politics are more intertwined with Cuban politics than with middle-eastern politics, but let's save that discussion for a different thread, okay?

Quote

Look up and read about the Platt Amendement if you wish.


BTW, I'm sure you know that the Platt Amendment was repealed in 1934. Or do you still consider it legitimately binding because it was valid for a period before 1934? Do you think Americans should start paying taxes to England again, since we were once English colonies? I guess that would certainly be consistent with your claim that Batista wasn't a dictator when Castro overthrew his unelected government.

Quote

If you really know this little about the history, you should talk to people who do and then maybe they can help you find some books on the matter that are worth more than toilet paper. If you don't know what you're talking about its really just better to say, "I don't know" rather than trying to wing it as that doesn't really work.



A bit like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

So far you have claimed that capitalism and dictatorships are mutually exclusive, which has been demonstrated to be false. You've claimed Batista was not a dictator, which is also false.

I really don't mind debating with you, but when you attack the poster instead of the post, it makes it that much less likely that your claims will be dignified with reasoned responses instead of disregarded out of hand or responded to with only flippant comments.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you really know this little about the history, you should talk to people who do and then maybe they can help you find some books on the matter that are worth more than toilet paper...



I respect that this is a heated and likely a personal subject for you, but this is a skydiving website, not a Cuban History and US-Cuban Politics website. If everyone to post on this topic had a PhD in these subjects, it would be a very short-lived topic.

Are there any books you recommend in particular?? I'm very interested in learning more, but clearly would like as objective a perspective as possible. I hope the books you're referring to weren't written in the US. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0