castro resigns

[Steel 0]

If somebody was elected and then took more power than he was granted by the people, then he did just that he took more power than was granted. If somebody else was NEVER elected then its not the same thing.

I never claimed that Batista was not a dictator in 1958, but instead clairified why it didn't make sense to be so short-cited as to equade him with Castro, a man who wisdom was never powerful enough to win even one free election.

Do you also not see the difference between somebody who assumes power and executes thousands imdediately, to secure his power and somebody who refuses to relenquish power and does NOT execute thousands who oppose him?

Here is another tidbit of information for you. In 1953 on July 26 Castro and a group of militants attacked the Moncado Garrison, trying to start a revolution. They were not successful, Castro ended up in jail, sentenced to 15 years. But Batista freed them all in May of 1955. I don't know any Cubans who don't wish Batista would have executed them all.
Knowing the history, only a fool would believe that if the shoe was on the other foot that Castro would have in any way hesitated to execute Batista. The fact that one of his first orders of business upon assuming control was to kill everybody who was associated with Batista Police force proved that. The only reason he didn't just go after Batista then was because Batista had already fled to another country.

I mentioned the Platt amendment to show a history of Politics being intertiwned. The Platt amendment, states that the U.S. has the right to restore order in Cuban govenment if order is lost. It was acted on a couple of time between 1902 adn 1934. This is one way in which its different from the Middle East and Chile and that was the reason I mentioned it to show some of the history.

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.

[Steel 0]

Quote

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.

Since there is no freedom of the press in Cuba, currently, I think any books written on this matter there would be useless.

Depending on how much time you want to invest in learning about Cuba, a quick start would be watching the movie "For love or Country", its a true story about the struggles of Arturo Sandoval (a Cuban jazz mucisian who was freinds with Dizzie Gillispie). "The lost city" was not based on a true story but it paints an extremely accurate picture of what actually occurred. If you get the DVD's both of these movies will have special features which will have people sharing their experiences. There are countless books and websites I can name. "Finding Manana (tommorow)" is one, "Tropicana" is another, www.therealcuba.com is loaded with a ton of information.

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.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If somebody was elected and then took more power than he was granted by the people, then he did just that he took more power than was granted. If somebody else was NEVER elected then its not the same thing.

It is the same thing. Batista seized power without election because he knew he wasn't going to win the upcoming election. The Cuban people did not want him. So, instead of respecting the process of free elections, he staged a coup against President Socarrás.

Incidentally, Castro was running for office in that election, also. Had Batista not sidestepped free elections, Castro may well have been elected President eventually. Or perhaps not. At any rate, Batista is equally to blame that his successor was not elected, since it was Batista who made a mockery of the election process in Cuba. Of course, that doesn't mean Castro is any better than Batista, but there's no reason to suggest he is worse.

Quote

I never claimed that Batista was not a dictator in 1958, but instead clairified why it didn't make sense to be so short-cited as to equade him with Castro, a man who wisdom was never powerful enough to win even one free election.

Do you also not see the difference between somebody who assumes power and executes thousands imdediately, to secure his power and somebody who refuses to relenquish power and does NOT execute thousands who oppose him?

You make it sound as though Batista reacted to opposition peacefully. That was certainly not the case. He rightfully earned a reputation of violence against those who dared demonstrate against him.

Quote

Here is another tidbit of information for you. In 1953 on July 26 Castro and a group of militants attacked the Moncado Garrison, trying to start a revolution. They were not successful, Castro ended up in jail, sentenced to 15 years. But Batista freed them all in May of 1955.

And then they fled Cuba in fear of their lives, believing Batista meant to kill them.

Quote

Knowing the history, only a fool would believe that if the shoe was on the other foot that Castro would have in any way hesitated to execute Batista. The fact that one of his first orders of business upon assuming control was to kill everybody who was associated with Batista Police force proved that.

As punishment for the violence those same police had visited upon Batista's opposition supporters and anti-Batista demonstrators, perhaps?

Quote

I mentioned the Platt amendment to show a history of Politics being intertiwned. The Platt amendment, states that the U.S. has the right to restore order in Cuban govenment if order is lost. It was acted on a couple of time between 1902 adn 1934. This is one way in which its different from the Middle East and Chile and that was the reason I mentioned it to show some of the history.

Surely you are not suggesting that the US has never interfered with or intervened in the governments of Chile or any middle-eastern countries.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

If somebody was elected and then took more power than he was granted by the people, then he did just that he took more power than was granted. If somebody else was NEVER elected then its not the same thing.

It is the same thing. Batista seized power without election because he knew he wasn't going to win the upcoming election. The Cuban people did not want him. So, instead of respecting the process of free elections, he staged a coup against President Socarrás.

Incidentally, Castro was running for office in that election, also. Had Batista not sidestepped free elections, Castro may well have been elected President eventually. Or perhaps not. At any rate, Batista is equally to blame that his successor was not elected, since it was Batista who made a mockery of the election process in Cuba. Of course, that doesn't mean Castro is any better than Batista, but there's no reason to suggest he is worse.
--------------------------------------------
I have never read anything about Castro running for office legitimately and hence doubt it. But I guess it possible that I could have missed something. The fact that Castro ruined the country and killed thousands for only political dissention makes it pretty clear to me who is worse.
============================

Quote

I never claimed that Batista was not a dictator in 1958, but instead clairified why it didn't make sense to be so short-cited as to equade him with Castro, a man who wisdom was never powerful enough to win even one free election.

Do you also not see the difference between somebody who assumes power and executes thousands imdediately, to secure his power and somebody who refuses to relenquish power and does NOT execute thousands who oppose him?

You make it sound as though Batista reacted to opposition peacefully. That was certainly not the case. He rightfully earned a reputation of violence against those who dared demonstrate against him.
----------------------------------------------
This sounds like a joke or word games. One guy releases a group of people trying to kill him, and you turn around say they left the country because they were afraid to be killed by the guy who easily could have but instead freed them.

Meanwhile the other guy who was freed kils eveybody associated with the with his opposition when the shoe is on the other foot, but you still don't see the difference. I try to just attack the post rather than the poster but sometimes when I find myself replying to such jibberish and word games it gets frustrating.

I guess the difference is I don't see this as a fun debate. This is something that really matters to me. I have family that is currently suffering because of this madman and trying to still find there way out because of him. I have talked to them personally. When I hear or read jibberish trying to cloud the real issue, such as much of what you have written here, its difficult not to take offense.
==========================

Quote

Knowing the history, only a fool would believe that if the shoe was on the other foot that Castro would have in any way hesitated to execute Batista. The fact that one of his first orders of business upon assuming control was to kill everybody who was associated with Batista Police force proved that.

As punishment for the violence those same police had visited upon Batista's opposition supporters and anti-Batista demonstrators, perhaps?
--------------------------------------
This senseless logic is just getting old.

Quote

I mentioned the Platt amendment to show a history of Politics being intertiwned. The Platt amendment, states that the U.S. has the right to restore order in Cuban govenment if order is lost. It was acted on a couple of time between 1902 adn 1934. This is one way in which its different from the Middle East and Chile and that was the reason I mentioned it to show some of the history.

Surely you are not suggesting that the US has never interfered with or intervened in the governments of Chile or any middle-eastern countries.

I am suggesting that there is no equivalent to the Platt amendment for Chile or any Middle Eastern Countries. That none of the Middle Eastern countries or Chile were ever considered a U.S. territory as Cuba was between 1898 and 1902.

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.

[SpeedRacer 1]

even if everything Steel says is true, it doesn't explain what practical benefits there are to keeping the trade embargo in place. If it hasnt worked for the last 45 years, why not try something different? Maybe increased exposure to the USA would inspire the Cubans to pressure the government for a change.


Others agree with me. Recent story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2168473.htm?section=world

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Steel 0]

Quote

even if everything Steel says is true, it doesn't explain what practical benefits there are to keeping the trade embargo in place. If it hasnt worked for the last 45 years, why not try something different? Maybe increased exposure to the USA would inspire the Cubans to pressure the government for a change.


Others agree with me. Recent story:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2168473.htm?section=world

I can provide you with links of blogs written by others who agree with this too. http://killkasstro.blogspot.com/ is one. I can also show you a link written by Cubans in favor of still keeping the embargo. http://www.nocastro.com/embargo/embargo.htm

I am not yet convinced that lifting the embargo will make any positive difference. I think that lifting the embargo would be like slap in the face. The fact that there are these two different opinions of how to deal with the problem does not change that collectively the overwelming majority of us (Cuban-Americans) see both of the Castros as what lead to Cuba's severe downfall.
It also means that we have different solutions for the problem at hand, Finding a way to free Cuba.

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.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I have never read anything about Castro running for office legitimately and hence doubt it. But I guess it possible that I could have missed something. The fact that Castro ruined the country and killed thousands for only political dissention makes it pretty clear to me who is worse.

I don't understand how you can give one violent dictator a free pass, yet are willing to demonize another violent dictator. It's not logical.

Quote

This sounds like a joke or word games. One guy releases a group of people trying to kill him, and you turn around say they left the country because they were afraid to be killed by the guy who easily could have but instead freed them.

Killing them while they were incarcerated would have eliminated any plausible deniability. Maybe Castro, et. al were just paranoid, but it is certainly not unreasonable to consider that Batista did, in fact, plan to have them killed.

Quote

Meanwhile the other guy who was freed kils eveybody associated with the with his opposition when the shoe is on the other foot, but you still don't see the difference. I try to just attack the post rather than the poster but sometimes when I find myself replying to such jibberish and word games it gets frustrating.

No, I don't see the difference between two violent dictators.

Quote

I guess the difference is I don't see this as a fun debate. This is something that really matters to me. I have family that is currently suffering because of them madman and trying to still find there way out because of him.

Who said anything about this being a fun debate? Is that a joke or word games?

The false equating of socialism with dictatorship and capitalism with benevolence is something that matters to me. It's inaccurate, and it does no one any good. It causes suffering when political pressures are put on the wrong countries for the wrong reasons. It is also a contributing factor to problems in the US, such as a lack of affordable healthcare for many Americans. I have family that is currently suffering because of that. And the baseless propaganda and the resulting economic sanctions against Cuba certainly aren't helping the Cuban people.

Governments and people need to let go of the silly "my way is the only right way" attitudes toward economic policy, and focus on fair, efficient distribution of scarce resources. Sometimes capitalist policies accomplish that goal best. Other times socialist policies accomplish that goal best. There is no denying that there are countries with mixed economies that allow their citizens to provide themselves with higher standards of living than in the US, where anti-socialism propaganda is very, if not most, prevalent.

Quote

I have talked to them personally. When I hear or read jibberish trying to cloud the real issue, such as much of what you have written here, its difficult not to take offense.

Do you believe you can talk to someone in Cuba who doesn't like Castro and still get an unbiased description of how his policies are affecting Cubans? That's like me asking a diehard Republican to describe the good thing Clinton did as president, or a diehard Democrat about the good things Reagan did and expecting unbiased responses. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's not going to happen. Facts will be spun, and both blame and credit will be misplaced.

Quote

This senseless logic is just getting old.

I don't see what is senseless about it. Those who demonstrated against Batista had violence visited upon them at the hands of Batista'a police. Batista was a violent dictator; why would that seem surprising?

Quote

Surely you are not suggesting that the US has never interfered with or intervened in the governments of Chile or any middle-eastern countries.

I am suggesting that there is no equivalent to the Platt amendment for Chile or any Middle Eastern Countries. That none of the Middle Eastern countries or Chile were ever considered a U.S. territory as Cuba was between 1898 and 1902.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

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.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are new are'nt you

[Bmore_chrissy 0]

Quote

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are new are'nt you

Kind of. I don't normally post in SC, but i'm interested in this particular topic.

I'm just saying... know your audience, people!

[Gawain 0]

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.

Already, the alliance will be strained by the sluggish economies of Germany and France. England is not going to join. Looks like Sweden is going to sit it out as well. It's not a cherry pick, it's a cold hard fact. The US, as a nation of 300M is the world's largest economy. China is the second. Their GDP is being revised downward a little bit, but barring some crazy twist, they will overtake the US in GDP in about 25 years (+/-).

All the grand talk of the "EU" plan has done nothing to generate jobs and is doing everything to erode sovereignty...without a constitution to boot.

Now, the UK is nationalizing Northern Rock. Hey, why not let the taxpayers foot the bill?

Societe Generale in France lost, EU4.8B in what...two weeks...because of one guy!!

Spain is doing pretty well, but they can't carry the load for Europe.

Quote

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.

Granted. My point was that allowing/forcing free markets does not make one a de-facto Capitalist.

Quote

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.

No it doesn't, the system was able to correct itself in the 80s. Good business, operating within a capitalist environment, requires good stewardship.

Quote

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 suppose, I just don't think it's a good example.

Quote

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.

I don't dispute the second half of this statement. I am stating the capitalism in a dictatorship is not much of a capitalist environment. If it were, the argument could be made that China is a capitalist nation.

A strict code of ethics, good stewardship and open markets...the model to look at is Singapore.

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!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

All the grand talk of the "EU" plan has done nothing to generate jobs and is doing everything to erode sovereignty...without a constitution to boot.

Yep, just as the US Constitution eroded the sovereignty of the states.

Quote

Societe Generale in France lost, EU4.8B in what...two weeks...because of one guy!!

Peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Estimates of losses in the US from the mortgage crisis range from $120 billion to $500 billion. The actual amount is somewhere in between.

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.

Quote

Granted. My point was that allowing/forcing free markets does not make one a de-facto Capitalist.

True, just as allowing/promoting socialism does not make one a de-facto dictator.

Quote

No it doesn't, the system was able to correct itself in the 80s. Good business, operating within a capitalist environment, requires good stewardship.

Ahh, but in a truly free market, the market checks and balances itself, according to the theory. The stewardship is done by the Invisible Hand. Not that I buy into that nonsense, that's just what is often taught.

Quote

I suppose, I just don't think it's a good example.

That's probably a fair statement. However, pure Marxist communism has not ever been implemented anywhere, either, so we don't have any good examples of that to study.

Quote

I don't dispute the second half of this statement. I am stating the capitalism in a dictatorship is not much of a capitalist environment. If it were, the argument could be made that China is a capitalist nation.

In many ways, China's markets are freer than the markets in the US.

Quote

A strict code of ethics, good stewardship and open markets...the model to look at is Singapore.

There are lots of good models to look at when it comes to having a successful economy and a benevolent government. Some are primarily capitalist, others have a strong socialist bend. Most are somewhere in between. Neither system is inherently good or bad, but both systems are inherently imperfect. They just have different imperfections.

I'm not trying to promote socialism, and I'm not trying to promote capitalism. What I want is to see politicians give up the all or nothing attitude, and recognize that there is not a simple "one size fits all" answer. The approach that works well in one market or industry may not work well in another. Neither private industry nor the government has the market cornered on efficiency. Both have their place in a healthy economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[434 2]

Shanghai model have a endless flow of poor people to come from outside to work for cheep money! Any economic system is depended on having a flow of cheep workers, like EC have to take up new low cost contries regulary to keep the economy grow! If that flow stops, the growt will stop! USA economic is depended on? mexico?

[Royd 0]

After a mention of Castro's retirement on this morning's news, I am just wondering, where will he go for his retirement?

Sunny, South Florida, or maybe, an Island Paridise, somewhere in the Carribean?

[TrophyHusband 0]

the villages?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

the villages?

...or Berkley...

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!