Can't believe that he was leader when I was 4!
Any views?
Especially interested in what our American friends here think.
Will it make any difference to anything?
For once, I think Trump's full official statement is perfectly on target.
For what Cuban exiles are thinking, I suspect Gloria Estefan's statement is a good summary
https://m.facebook.com/gloriaestefan/photos/a.10151036376221673.423063.74681301672/10153846991641673/?type=3&source=48
Quote from: vandermolen on November 26, 2016, 10:57:41 AM
Will it make any difference to anything?
It will probably make further normalization of relations between the US and Cuba an easier and smoother undertaking. I'll say that's a good thing.
Also, Castro's death provides a much needed hit for the Death List for this year, which has been very slow since summer.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 26, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
For once, I think Trump's full official statement is perfectly on target.
For what Cuban exiles are thinking, I suspect Gloria Estefan's statement is a good summary
https://m.facebook.com/gloriaestefan/photos/a.10151036376221673.423063.74681301672/10153846991641673/?type=3&source=48
Indeed.
Quote from: Todd on November 26, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
It will probably make further normalization of relations between the US and Cuba an easier and smoother undertaking. I'll say that's a good thing.
Also, Castro's death provides a much needed hit for the Death List for this year, which has been very slow since summer.
Then who might you hope or expect to be next and how soon?
Quote from: ahinton on November 26, 2016, 01:26:17 PM
The who might you hope or expect to be next and how soon?
Kinda. The Death List. (https://www.deathlist.net/) A cheerful British site. 2017 names are already being discussed.
Corbyn, Junker, Higgins, Khamenei, Trudeau -
five delusional statements following the dictator´s death:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/26/five-worst-responses-fidel-castro-death
I've always had mixed feelings about his leadership and conservative viewpoints, but he has certainly been a figurehead in 20th century politics especially for his speeches about poverty, and in the 90s his stance on climate change and anti-apartheid views. I am sure that he will be missed.
Quote from: Turner on November 26, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
Corbyn, Junker, Higgins, Khamenei, Trudeau -
five delusional statements following the dictator´s death:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/26/five-worst-responses-fidel-castro-death
It's kind of dumb to only talk about the positive aspects of any leader's policies and personality. Castro did many wrong things for the right reasons though, and I personally dont like his leadership style very much. For progressive politicians who are praising a much more socially conservative leader just goes to show that the principle of 'the ends justify the means' is unfortuantely common worldwide, not just within single party systems.
Quote from: jessop on November 26, 2016, 02:36:09 PM
I've always had mixed feelings about his leadership and conservative viewpoints, but he has certainly been a figurehead in 20th century politics especially for his speeches about poverty, and in the 90s his stance on climate change and anti-apartheid views. I am sure that he will be missed.
He was a murderer who had children shot. Did you not know this or did you not care?
Quote from: Ken B on November 26, 2016, 03:55:01 PM
He was a murderer who had children shot. Did you not know this or did you not care?
I do know and do care about this. As I've stated, I'm don't like the things he has done. He did things which I abhor, he held views which I find terribly socially conservative and worryingly nationalist, and through this he was able to create a nation with admirable education and healthcare and environmentalism. Ultimately I would say that despite all the good he intended and achieved, this doesn't erase the human rights violations that occurred because of him. In my own country there have been politicians whom I admire for some things but absolutely despise due to the human rights violations that they have imposed on the most vulnerable members of our society. No politician is completely good and no politician is completely bad. I hate having the appearance of being a fence sitter, but what I hate even more is when politicians are receiving only universal praise or universal disgust.
Quote from: Turner on November 26, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
Corbyn, Junker, Higgins, Khamenei, Trudeau -
five delusional statements following the dictator´s death:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/26/five-worst-responses-fidel-castro-death
Geez, about what you would expect, I guess. If they were intelligent, they wouldn't be in politics.
Quote from: jessop on November 26, 2016, 02:36:09 PM
I've always had mixed feelings about his leadership and conservative viewpoints, but he has certainly been a figurehead in 20th century politics especially for his speeches about poverty, and in the 90s his stance on climate change and anti-apartheid views. I am sure that he will be missed.
A nicely political view. In fact, nearly everyone hated him, because they feared him. There is a large wave of Stockholm Syndrome, which is always apparent in countries in that situation. Look at North Korea for a good example of this. Walk around Miami and talk to some of the old people who were able to flee, leaving everything behind, including family who were often imprisoned for life to pay the price for their escape.
I'm going to assume you are being sarcastic in your last sentence... Please lord, let it be sarcasm... :)
8)
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 26, 2016, 11:04:50 AM
For once, I think Trump's full official statement is perfectly on target.
For what Cuban exiles are thinking, I suspect Gloria Estefan's statement is a good summary
https://m.facebook.com/gloriaestefan/photos/a.10151036376221673.423063.74681301672/10153846991641673/?type=3&source=48
Indeed, and well said, Ms. Estefan.
Quote from: Monsieur Croche on November 26, 2016, 07:59:22 PM
Indeed, and well said, Ms. Estefan.
+ 1
Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, might have achieved the top of idiocy by calling Castro as Cuba´s "longest serving president". As TheReason.com comments, "[this is] a feat less impressive when you factor in the fact that Castro's one-party government never held a free election."
Bottom line, one brutal tyrant less in the world. Several others still to go.
Very interesting replies - thanks.
BBC's coverage was balanced this morning I think.
Quote from: Todd on November 26, 2016, 01:34:23 PM
Kinda. The Death List. (https://www.deathlist.net/) A cheerful British site. 2017 names are already being discussed.
Cheerful to those who apparently have nothing better to do than either compile or update or read it, one could say.
By the way, has that nice chap Bobby Mugabe commented yet?
Quote from: Florestan on November 27, 2016, 01:15:34 AM
+ 1
Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, might have achieved the top of idiocy by calling Castro as Cuba´s "longest serving president". As TheReason.com comments, "[this is] a feat less impressive when you factor in the fact that Castro's one-party government never held a free election."
Bottom line, one brutal tyrant less in the world. Several others still to go.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/fidel-castro-dies-justin-trudeau-issues-statement-much-hilarity-ensues-trudeaueulogies (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/fidel-castro-dies-justin-trudeau-issues-statement-much-hilarity-ensues-trudeaueulogies)
More here. Scroll down for Canadian replies, including about Romania.
Quote from: Ken B on November 27, 2016, 05:24:00 AM
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/fidel-castro-dies-justin-trudeau-issues-statement-much-hilarity-ensues-trudeaueulogies (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/fidel-castro-dies-justin-trudeau-issues-statement-much-hilarity-ensues-trudeaueulogies)
More here. Scroll down for Canadian replies, including about Romania.
Though not universally liked by his compatriots, Mr. Ceausescu was a leader in urban design and affordable housing. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyPKOSLUoAAUjYk.jpg)
(https://assets.letemps.ch/sites/default/files/styles/lt_chappatte/public/chappatte/2016-11-27//L161128c.jpg)
Everything I know about Castro comes from Woody Allen's old film Bananas
Quote from: jessop on November 26, 2016, 04:58:26 PM
I do know and do care about this. As I've stated, I don't like the things he has done. He did things which I abhor, he held views which I find terribly socially conservative and worryingly nationalist, and through this he was able to create a nation with admirable education and healthcare and environmentalism. Ultimately I would say that despite all the good he intended and achieved, this doesn't erase the human rights violations that occurred because of him. In my own country there have been politicians whom I admire for some things but absolutely despise due to the human rights violations that they have imposed on the most vulnerable members of our society. No politician is completely good and no politician is completely bad. I hate having the appearance of being a fence sitter, but what I hate even more is when politicians are receiving only universal praise or universal disgust.
Well said, Jessop.
What I find so ironic are the Americans who say things like Fidel Castro was a tyrant who killed people, but the very soil of this great nation we call the USA was founded on bloodshed. Hypocrisy at its' finest, folks. Canada wasn't exactly a rose garden when they were becoming established either. But, the US is responsible for more deaths than Castro could ever even fathom. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two classic examples of how Americans say things that are completely contradictory to what history has already written.
Trudeau is primarily being criticised by Americans who are surprised to discover that Canada never had the same issues with Cuba that the USA did.
Quote from: Spineur on November 27, 2016, 12:50:31 PM
(https://assets.letemps.ch/sites/default/files/styles/lt_chappatte/public/chappatte/2016-11-27//L161128c.jpg)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 27, 2016, 07:07:39 PM
What I find so ironic are the Americans who say things like Fidel Castro was a tyrant who killed people, but the very soil of this great nation we call the USA was founded on bloodshed. Hypocrisy at its' finest, folks. Canada wasn't exactly a rose garden when they were becoming established either. But, the US is responsible for more deaths than Castro could ever even fathom. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are two classic examples of how Americans say things that are completely contradictory to what history has already written.
I fail to see how USA´s fighting Japan in a protracted and brutal war is morally equivalent with, and whitewashing, Castro´s killing his own people in times of peace.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 27, 2016, 08:21:11 PM
Trudeau is primarily being criticised by Americans who are surprised to discover that Canada never had the same issues with Cuba that the USA did.
Or by people like me, who know firsthand what daily life in a communist regime means and at what price in terms of "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness" come the education, healthcare and affordable housing.
Quote from: Florestan on November 28, 2016, 01:21:17 AM
Or by people like me, who know firsthand what daily life in a communist regime means and at what price in terms of "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness" come the education, healthcare and affordable housing.
There are good and bad regimes of many persuasions. I'm not here to argue that Castro's regime was good, I'm merely pointing out that Trudeau's remarks are perfectly understandable from a Canadian perspective, and certainly from his personal perspective. Castro was one of his father's pallbearers. He was hardly going to label Castro as a great evil.
I'm not going to argue in favour of communism either, but it would be wrong to assume that all Communist regimes were as EQUALLY shit as the Romanian one. There's a reason why the toppling of Ceausescu went the way it did.
Quote from: Florestan on November 28, 2016, 01:21:17 AM
Or by people like me, who know firsthand what daily life in a communist regime means and at what price in terms of "life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness" come the education, healthcare and affordable housing.
Well, you know what they say..."The Cuban revolution has made three great achievements:
education,
healthcare; and
sports, and three great failures:
breakfast,
lunch and
dinner". ::)
Quote from: ørfeo on November 28, 2016, 01:47:47 AM
Castro was one of his father's pallbearers. He was hardly going to label Castro as a great evil.
That is true. :D
Quote
I'm not going to argue in favour of communism either, but it would be wrong to assume that all Communist regimes were as EQUALLY shit as the Romanian one. There's a reason why the toppling of Ceausescu went the way it did.
Ceausescu´s regime was actually moderate in the beginning (he freed all political prisoners and initiated a "liberalisation" which gained him the praise of none other than de Gaulle and Nixon, whom he visited and by whom he was visited) and during the first decade of his rule life was relatively tolerable and prosperous on the condition that you shut up and just do your job. He went mad after 1977 when he visited North Korea and China and got inspiration from the asiatic despotism they embodied. In this transformation from a relatively liberal ruler to a ruthless tyrant whose cult of personality achieved pharaoh-scale proportions he was assisted by his wife. The last decade, 1980-89 was the worst and darkest period in Romania´s modern history.
Quote from: ritter on November 28, 2016, 02:00:59 AM
Well, you know what they say..."The Cuban revolution has made three great achievements: education, healthcare; and sports, and three great failures: breakfast, lunch and dinner". ::)
See my post above. In the 80s of the last century breakfast, lunch and dinner were the biggest daily problem in Romania too. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on November 28, 2016, 02:14:43 AM
That is true. :D
Ceausescu´s regime was actually moderate in the beginning (he freed all political prisoners and initiated a "liberalisation" which gained him the praise of none other than de Gaulle and Nixon, whom he visited and by whom he was visited) and during the 15 years of his rule life was relatively tolerable and prosperous on the condition that you shut up and just do your job. He went mad after 1977 when he visited North Korea and China and got inspiration from the asiatic despotism they embodied. In this transformation from a relatively liberal ruler to a ruthless tyrant whose cult of personality achieved pharaoh-scale proportions he was assisted by his wife. The last decade, 1980-89 was the worst and darkest period in Romania´s modern history.
In this respect a parallel situation occurred in Albania although the early stages of the Hoxha régime were already more oppressive than the first years of Ceausescu's and, of course, Hoxha presided over Albania for almost twice as long as Ceausescu did over Romania; despite the worst horrors of the Ceausescu years, they were no match for those in Albania from around the end of WWII until the latter 1980s and, even today, Albania remains outside EU whereas Romania became a member state several years ago. The treatment of a substantial proportion of the Albanian population and the acute isolationism that accompanied it almost resemble those in North Korea under the Kims.
That said, there are parallels between both states and Cuba in that all were at some point characterised by some improvements in healthcare and education.
Quote from: ahinton on November 28, 2016, 02:38:15 AM
In this respect a parallel situation occurred in Albania although the early stages of the Hoxha régime were already more oppressive than the first years of Ceausescu's and, of course, Hoxha presided over Albania for almost twice as long as Ceausescu did over Romania; despite the worst horrors of the Ceausescu years, they were no match for those in Albania from around the end of WWII until the latter 1980s and, even today, Albania remains outside EU whereas Romania became a member state several years ago. The treatment of a substantial proportion of the Albanian population and the acute isolationism that accompanied it almost resemble those in North Korea under the Kims.
That said, there are parallels between both states and Cuba in that all were at some point characterised by some improvements in healthcare and education.
That is correct, for all his madness and delusion of grandeur Ceausescu was no match for the horrors and isolationism of Enver Hoxha, although in the last respect he tried very hard, especially in his last years.
FWIW, his finest hour came in September 1968 when he refused to join the Warsaw Pact, USSR-lead invasion of Czechoslovakia and publicly denounced it as an imperialist aggression. This clever move earned him the admiration of the Western leaders and made many Romanians voluntarily join the Party.
Quote from: Florestan on November 28, 2016, 12:40:09 AM
I fail to see how USA´s fighting Japan in a protracted and brutal war is morally equivalent with, and whitewashing, Castro´s killing his own people in times of peace.
The point is more innocent people died during those bombings and
we, the US, were responsible. Castro looks like a kindergartener compared to what the US has done and not to mention Russia, Germany, and Britain.
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 28, 2016, 06:30:17 AM
The point is more innocent people died during those bombings and we, the US, were responsible.
With all respect, that (the highlighted--by me---bit) is debatable,
John! :-X
Quote from: Mirror Image on November 28, 2016, 06:30:17 AM
The point is more innocent people died during those bombings and we, the US, were responsible. Castro looks like a kindergartener compared to what the US has done and not to mention Russia, Germany, and Britain.
And so it's OK then.
Wasn't it Stalin who said something about "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"? Where is the cutoff point? Castro was an asshole of the first water, the only reason he pales in comparison with anyone is because of limited means.
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 28, 2016, 08:39:02 AM
Castro was an asshole of the first water, the only reason he pales in comparison with anyone is because of limited means.
Any meaningful comparison should take into account not absolute numbers but the percentage of the Cuban population which were killed, maimed, displaced, dispossessed, imprisoned, tortured and/or forced to flee the country during Castro's dictatorship. He had not only limited means but also only that many millions of people on which to exercise his tyranny.
EDIT: and a note about education: what use is everyone being taught to read if there is nothing to read except the official propaganda newspapers and the books that the censorship deems fit for printing?
Quote from: Florestan on November 28, 2016, 02:14:43 AM
... The last decade, 1980-89 was the worst and darkest period in Romania´s modern history.
Brings back memories of how we clung to the radio (grew up without tv) when he was ousted .... by insiders? what's the status of that debate, haven't read about it for several months
And gotta love Chapatte, of course!
Quote from: king ubu on November 28, 2016, 09:24:28 AM
Brings back memories of how we clung to the radio (grew up without tv) when he was ousted .... by insiders? what's the status of that debate, haven't read about it for several months
There was a genuine people's rebellion against him but also an insiders conspiracy which eventually got in control of the events. They got rid of him quickly after a rigged trial --- he knew too much about them and as such was extremely dangerous.
He led a bloody rebellion against a despotic regime, then was head of a regime which did some good, but arguably became equally despotic. He is a complex figure that cannot be classified as unequivocally good or unequivocally evil.
The fact that the U.S. treated him as though he were the Great Satan, an outcome of the placement of Soviet Missiles in Cuba and the ensuing crisis, was absurd. If the U.S. had not reacted to the Cuban revolution as it did, with the Bay of Pigs invasion and other measures, things might have been very different.
Woody Allen's Parody is spot-on.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 28, 2016, 08:39:02 AM
And so it's OK then.
Wasn't it Stalin who said something about "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic"? Where is the cutoff point? Castro was an asshole of the first water, the only reason he pales in comparison with anyone is because of limited means.
8)
It doesn't matter whether something was a full scale annihilation of a city or a 10 people line-up where they're shot execution style, these are terrible acts of violence and there is no comparison whenever the act itself is inhumane and deaths are involved.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread. There's a reason
why I stay out of political threads: they lead to nothing but hard feelings and bad tastes in people's mouths.
Quote from: ørfeo on November 28, 2016, 01:47:47 AM
There are good and bad regimes of many persuasions. I'm not here to argue that Castro's regime was good, I'm merely pointing out that Trudeau's remarks are perfectly understandable from a Canadian perspective, and certainly from his personal perspective. Castro was one of his father's pallbearers. He was hardly going to label Castro as a great evil.
I'm not going to argue in favour of communism either, but it would be wrong to assume that all Communist regimes were as EQUALLY shit as the Romanian one. There's a reason why the toppling of Ceausescu went the way it did.
Trudeau's remarks are not "understandable from a Canadian perspective". We are not moral cretins. His remarks have gone down rather badly with Canadians. That we did not agree with US policy on Cuba does not imply we condoned his regime.
So some of us think that Castro had redeeming qualities, some of us not.
What about Trump's threat to undo the recent developments? (I'm a Brit, by the way).
Quote from: Dax on November 28, 2016, 03:34:51 PM
So some of us think that Castro had redeeming qualities, some of us not.
What about Trump's threat to undo the recent developments? (I'm a Brit, by the way).
Personally I find it rather contradictory for Trump to say
QuoteWhile Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.
And then threaten to put an end to the normalisation.........
More on the "Canadian perspective". Trudeau will not attend the funeral, burned by the reactions of Canadians to his disgraceful eulogy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-castro-trudeau-idUSKBN13N1UO (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-castro-trudeau-idUSKBN13N1UO)
Quote from: Ken B on November 26, 2016, 03:55:01 PM
He was a murderer who had children shot. Did you not know this or did you not care?
Spot on!! Just shows how far the Left has taken us down the authoritarian food chain that this murderer can be held up as some kind of important leader. I still have images of those people escaping on anything that floats, heading for the US. Reminiscent of the Syrian refugees of recent times, minus the free-loading illegals from other countries.
Removing Batista was a very worthwhile goal, but as so often happens, replacing one dictator with another brings us nowhere,. I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if the fall of Batista had been followed by a more open US policy towards the new leadership in Cuba....and I admit to knowing little about the circumstances at he time except for the general cllimate og cold war, US McCarhyism and paranoia towards anything smelling of social reform and redistribution.
Quote from: Ken B on November 28, 2016, 05:28:46 PM
More on the "Canadian perspective". Trudeau will not attend the funeral, burned by the reactions of Canadians to his disgraceful eulogy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-castro-trudeau-idUSKBN13N1UO (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-castro-trudeau-idUSKBN13N1UO)
Noted. Including noting that it affirms what I had already understood, that Canada was one of the Western nations most friendly to Cuba during Castro's reign.
Something that the USA in fact took advantage of when it suited, using Canada as a go-between for communication with Cuba so that it could maintain it was not talking to Cuba.
(http://conservativefans.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/img_2449.jpg)
What a pity that wisecrack studiously avoids having any pictures of Pierre Trudeau for comparison. You know, given how 5 seconds on Google will provide clear evidence of the resemblance of Pierre and Justin. ::)
Is this what passes for political debate these days? Jesus.
Journalistic objectivity:
No, this isn't journalism, and nobody who visits the website would expect impartiality. Still, I found the similarities extremely striking.
Castro would not have been in power for so long had he had not have the support of the majority of the Cuban people. If he didn't have that support, he would've have to resort to more repressive means. There were never any death squads in Cuba like there were in Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. He didn't have a private Swiss bank account like many of these brutal dictators. Many of the people who fled Cuba, did so more for economic reasons than political ones and this was due to the economic blockade imposed by the U.S. for the last 40 years. Cuba was heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union but when Soviet Union collapse, things turned for the worst economically in Cuba.
All we know it, Carlito77. Cuba was a socialist paradise.
Free elections, freedom of speech, no crimes, no concentration camps, no death of political opponents, no political prisioners, no summary executions, with impartial courts. We know all of that. :)
Quote from: carlito77 on November 29, 2016, 02:47:47 AMMany of the people who fled Cuba, did so more for economic reasons than political ones and this was due to the economic blockade imposed by the U.S. for the last 40 years. Cuba was heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union but when Soviet Union collapse, things turned for the worst economically in Cuba.
Indeed, and:
Quote
The UN General Assembly has, since 1992, passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it to be in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel voted against and the Pacific island nations Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained. Human rights groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have also been critical of the embargo. Critics of the embargo say that the embargo laws are too harsh, citing the fact that violations can result in 10 years in prison.
Quote from: carlito77 on November 29, 2016, 02:47:47 AM
Castro would not have been in power for so long had he had not have the support of the majority of the Cuban people. If he didn't have that support, he would've have to resort to more repressive means. There were never any death squads in Cuba like there were in Argentina, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. He didn't have a private Swiss bank account like many of these brutal dictators. Many of the people who fled Cuba, did so more for economic reasons than political ones and this was due to the economic blockade imposed by the U.S. for the last 40 years. Cuba was heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union but when Soviet Union collapse, things turned for the worst economically in Cuba.
"Death squads" in Chile? You're misinformed. This is not central America. Terrible, but here almost all the repression was exclusively run by agents of the State.
Quote from: North Star on November 29, 2016, 03:00:46 AM
Indeed, and:
Worthwhile quotes that, and I would like to quote myself:
Quote from: The new erato on November 28, 2016, 11:08:32 PM
Removing Batista was a very worthwhile goal, but as so often happens, replacing one dictator with another brings us nowhere,. I cannot help but wonder what would have happened if the fall of Batista had been followed by a more open US policy towards the new leadership in Cuba....and I admit to knowing little about the circumstances at the time except for the general cllimate of cold war, US McCarthyism and paranoia towards anything smelling of social reform and redistribution.
Some french wit, which cannot really be translated:
Cuba n'ayant pas l'usage des urnes, où diable! en a-t-on trouvé une pour recueillir les cendres de Castro ? Bernard Pivot
finir roulé dans un cigare, il n'y a que ça de vrai pour un tel homme.
La Havane n'a pas beaucoup d'urnes mais beaucoup de cendriers ...
Fidel, with his Rolex 6542
Based on the Eastern European experience, how Castro will be perceived in the future will largely depend on how well his successors govern Cuba.
There was a joke circulating in Moscow in the 1990s: "What has Boris Yeltsin achieved in 1 year that the Bolsheviks couldn't achieve in 70? He made communism look good."
Yousuf Karsh's 1971 portrait
(http://mfas3.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/1000px/s3/objects/SC201747.jpg?itok=t4OxbHzv)
While that certainly had moments of being a highly accurate assessment of the Castro regime, it was unfortunately framed in such a totally offensive, ad hominem sort of way that I can't reasonably allow it to remain. If you care to try again, by all means do, but let's not carry personality judgments into it, of anyone except Castro, who is no longer in a position to be offended by it.
GB
8)
While that certainly had moments of being a highly accurate assessment of the Castro regime, it was unfortunately framed in such a totally offensive, ad hominem sort of way that I can't reasonably allow it to remain. If you care to try again, by all means do, but let's not carry personality judgments into it, of anyone except Castro, who is no longer in a position to be offended by it.
GB
8)
Well, I do apologize to Carlito --- but as someone born and raised in a Communist regime I do take personal offense, and retort accordingly, each and every time someone tries to argue that the rulers might not have been that bad after all... and I am especially offended by the argument that if they lasted that long in power then the people must have backed them. This is all BULLSHIT.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on November 29, 2016, 10:18:28 AM
While that certainly had moments of being a highly accurate assessment of the Castro regime, it was unfortunately framed in such a totally offensive, ad hominem sort of way that I can't reasonably allow it to remain. If you care to try again, by all means do, but let's not carry personality judgments into it, of anyone except Castro, who is no longer in a position to be offended by it.
GB
8)
Oh come on.! You could have deleted only my
ad hominem! Deleting it all is an unwarranted overreaction t and I do protest! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on November 29, 2016, 10:23:46 AM
Well, I do apologize to Carlito --- but as someone born and raised in a Communist regime I do take personal offense, and retort accordingly, each and every time someone tries to argue that the rulers might not have been that bad after all... and I am especially offended by the argument that if they lasted that long in power then the people must have backed them. This is all BULLSHIT.
No sir. No, no. As we have discussed in another context, it is not bullshit. It is distilled essence of four-dimensional bullshit. On a hot day.
Quote from: Ken B on November 29, 2016, 10:30:37 AM
No sir. No, no. As we have discussed in another context, it is not bullshit. It is distilled essence of four-dimensional bullshit. On a hot day.
True, but in that other context no blood was shed. OTOH, whenever tyrants are being whitewashed I see
red (pun intended!) ;D
Quote from: Florestan on November 29, 2016, 10:23:46 AM
Well, I do apologize to Carlito --- but as someone born and raised in a Communist regime I do take personal offense, and retort accordingly, each and every time someone tries to argue that the rulers might not have been that bad after all... and I am especially offended by the argument that if they lasted that long in power then the people must have backed them. This is all BULLSHIT.
I do agree with that. My only disagreement is with the corollary expression that anyone who doesn't realize it must be a moron.
Quote from: Florestan on November 29, 2016, 10:25:13 AM
Oh come on.! You could have deleted only my ad hominem! Deleting it all is an unwarranted overreaction t and I do protest! ;D
True, but I am at work and don't have time to get my scalpel out to do a minor excision of a major tumor. They also serve who merely volunteer... :-\
8)
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15267667_10211055282040940_3581078003627462640_n.jpg?oh=cc594a5cfc28ffa52e929a4a7dd86e5e&oe=58C6584D)