(V): There have been many socialist dictators. Castro, to name one.

(V): Cold war talk? I'm not sure where I have mentioned Cold War. Though, I'm not sure I classify as "conservative element". But maybe. I probably fall under that category more closely than I do "liberal element". But it's a bit too "blanket-y" for me.

I don't have the energy to bother going into the "brainwashing" bit as far as socialism goes. He is pretty darn close to it though.

Pedro Martínez: And why did Castro into power.. because the little guy was being trodden on by capitalists.

rod03801: You didn't. But it seems socialism only became a dirty word in the USA after WWII. If it wasn't for the Russians and China we'd found WWII a longer and more costly war.

(V): All I know is I don't want Socialism in MY federal govt, and I will definitely do MY part to not see it be there.

(V): So what? He was a socialist dictator, you can't deny that. So instead of dodging, why don't you go back to your original post and correct it, now that you have been thrown some knowledge.

If a silly argument is about to start, it WILL be deleted, and NO warning messages will be sent

Pedro Martínez: Yes I can disagree. He was a revolutionary just like in the American revolution.

As for a dictator.. tricky. That the USA was trying to kill and overthrow him every 5 minutes would have had an effect on how the government went along..

I think in the USA it's called Homeland security now.. or the CIA beforehand.

rod03801: So if the type of socialism got introduced that power over everything was in the power of the people (true worker ownership) you would say no?

The Cuban Revolution was an armed revolt that led to the overthrow of dictator Fulgencio Batista of Cuba on January 1, 1959 by the 26th of July Movement led by Fidel Castro.[1]

"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."

– U.S. President John F. Kennedy, interview with Jean Daniel, October 24, 1963

I read that about 75% of Cuba's best arable land was owned by foreign individuals or companies before the revolution (mainly USA) How was that fair?

Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar (Spanish pronunciation: [fulˈxenθjo βaˈtista i θalˈdiβar]; January 16, 1901 – August 6, 1973) was a Cuban President, dictator, and military leader closely aligned with and supported by the United States. He served as the leader of Cuba from 1933–1944, and 1952–1959, before being overthrown as a result of the Cuban Revolution.[2]

Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 "Revolt of the Sergeants" that overthrew the government of Gerardo Machado, becoming the Army Chief of Staff, with the rank of colonel, and effectively controlling the five-member Presidency. He maintained this control until 1940, when he was himself elected President of Cuba, serving until 1944. From 1944-1952 he lived in the United States, returning to Cuba as leader of a U.S. backed coup that preempted the 1952 elections in which Batista was running a distant third.

Throughout the 1950s, Batista's corrupt and repressive regime systematically profited from the exploitation of Cuba's commercial interests, in partnership with U.S. corporations and the American Mafia.[3] As a result, for three years Fidel Castro's July 26th Movement and other rebelling elements led a guerrilla uprising against Batista's regime which culminated in his eventual defeat following the Battle of Santa Clara on New Year's Day 1959. Batista immediately fled the island with an amassed personal fortune.

(V): So if you like quoting Wikipedia so much, why don't you quote the most important information relating to the subject? I.e. Castro being a socialist dictator?

“In 1965 he became First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, and led the transformation of Cuba into a one-party socialist republic.”
“On May 1, 1961, Castro declared Cuba a socialist state and officially abolished multiparty elections.”

“Many observers refer to Castro as a dictator […].”
“Despite his denouncement of dictatorships, Castro himself has been described as a dictator.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro

Pedro Martínez:

... "Castro himself has been described as a dictator."

doesn't mean he is one.

I could describe Palin as a fascist money grabbing opportunist... doesn't make her a fascist does it!!

Tuesday: Sometimes people like to relax and doze to a good film. Or as is common in the UK.. Cricket. It's an intrusion for the advertisers to break that relaxed mood just because someone wants to tell you 95% of 68 men think brand 'X' razor is better than all the rest!!

(V): You have no arguments. If you read the Wikipedia article on Castro, you would find out that both claims regarding his dictatorship I have posted are backed by lots of sources and expert opinions.

Pedro Martínez: Yes.. opinions.

My opinion differs as does the opinion of people on Castro. Therefore there is disagreement.

As you have pointed out before.. experts can be wrong.

(V): I'm sure the Cuban political prisoners would agree with you… and I'm sure you'd love to live in a country like Cuba, North Korea, or in any pre-1989 communist country. Socialism taken to its best…

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. “Dictatorship of the proletariat“… ever heard of that? Of course you haven't, how could you…

Pedro Martínez:

“Dictatorship of the proletariat“

"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

It is all the same crap. Here is a political and economic elite. They have power and want to keep it in their hands. So they oppress everyone around them.

I saw it in Guatemala where I was born. The rich oppressed the poor and used them as cheap labour. When the poor figured that they had enough they rose up, and the rich responded by throwing the army at them. The CIA figured that communists were taking over, so they pumped money and weapons into the military and turned Guatemala into a Fascist dictatorship. The rich got richer, and the poor got screwed.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia were oppressed by the Soviet Union when they had had enough of "Communism". The question is: "Who had the power and why did they oppress?"

It is the same: capitalism and communism are equally oppressive. Stalin sent 9 million Ukrainians to their death in the name of the revolution. Our western "democracies" (mostly represented by the US, the UK and France) sent 6 million Vietnamese and 3 million Koreans to their deaths in the name of freedom and democracy. Every oppressive system uses ideology to justify itself. In the end, oppressors are oppresors, no matter how hard they try to justify their actions.

People and their political systems are defined not by their ideologies but by their actions. Ideology is just empty justification. Higher principles life freedom, democracy, equality, liberation and revolution are abstract concepts and the powerful use them to justify lining their pockets with money and pursuing political power.

Pedro Martínez: I'm sure the 200,000+ killed by the free democratic South Korean government that the USA installed would agree with you. Or the other 1000's upon thousands killed, maimed and tortured when the 'free' have not agreed with the right of a people to choose or go through the difficult process of self governing.

from what I read about the history of the Cuban revolution and the aftermath.. Castro only went to the Russians and declared the country as communist because the USA companies put pressure on the USA government to overthrow Castro so they could pillage the Cuban people and country again.

.. They didn't like losing out on the profits they had enjoyed under the USA placed dictator. As for the political prisoners.. approx 650 attempts on your life can make a man and his government a little paranoid.

I'm sure those in the USA who had their lives ruined by free fellow countrymen through the McCarthy kangaroo court would agree with you also.

(V): I hope there is a cure for that… If I were religious, I would post a prayer for you on the Thoughts and Prayers board…

Pedro Martínez: ROFL.....I love your sense of humour

Pedro Martínez: ??? for studying history???

It's one of those subjects they teach at school you know.

(V): Yup, do study. You can start with the meaning of the words “socialism” and “dictatorship”.

Pedro Martínez: Socialism comes in many formats from state to pure ownership by the people such as communes. Dictatorships vary from one party to one system (such as could be said of the USA two party system)...

Did they in history classes teach you about why things happened or just what happened?

Pedro Martínez:
> “socialism” and “dictatorship”

I suppose that most people's understanding of things like capitalism, socialism, democracy and dictatorship comes from whatever they learned in their high school social studies class.

In real life (that is, outside a little textbook) the lines are blurred. Capitalism has little to do with democracy, and socialism has little to do with dictatorship.

Sweden is a socialist country, and it is hardly a dictorship. Saudi Arabia is a capitalist country, and it is also a dictatorship. China is run by the Communist party, it is a dictaorship, and it is also a capitalist country. Canada, the US and the UK are a lot more "socialist" than the citizens of those countries would care to admit. The legal sytems in western countries are cumbersome. The bureacracy is huge. The government is in every sphere of life, from healthcare to laws that restrict where a dog can poop.

Most Americans woudl be surprised to know that the American government is more socialist than the government of the People's Republic of China. In terms of capitalism, it is easier to open and run a business in China than it is in moset western "capitalist" countries.

I have been to Cuba. Most of the Cuban economy is in the hands of private companies that run the hospitality businesses (hotels, resorts, etc.) In all of Cuba there is not a single statue or portrait of Fidel Castro. In fact, the only place to find his picture is in souvenir shops for tourists. Of all the heroes of the revolution, the only one whose likeness appears anywhere is Che Guevara. There is a big portrait of him in the building that houses Radio Havana (Cuba's braodcasting company). Other than that you would have to look really hard to find statues or portraits of him.

Most Cubans are ambivalent with respect to their countries situation. They know that Cuba is poor, but that is because after nearly 50 years of economic blockade the US (and msot of its allies) refuse to take a more moderate stance towards Cuba.

People have short memories. Most Cuban political prisoners went to the US during the Carter and Regan administrations. The Carter and Regan administrations were putting too much pressure on Cuba, so the Cuban government opened the jails, put all prisoners (political or otherwise) in a boat (the Mariel) and sent them to the US. There are still political prisoners left in Cuba. Mostly those who did plot or carry out terrorist attacks (mostly bombings and sabotage).

For sure there are people who are detained for purely political reasons. But then, most countries do that. Anyone who doubts it has to look at political prisoners and "unlawful combatants" captured during the War on Terror.

The reality of Cuba is simple. The US figured that Cuba would remain a "protectorate" just like Puerto Rico. Cuba chose a different path. Right wing American's are too proud to accept that other countries could chose a way of life different from the American way of life. So they try to squeeze Cuba hoping that some day the government there will collapse.

If western countries cared about dictatorship, they would have stopped doing busines not just with Cuba, but also with most countries in the Middle East, the People's Republic of China, as well as dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, Asia, etc. If being a dictatorship were the defining cause for stopping business with a country, the world economy would be paralized because most countries are dictatorships.

Cuba being a dictatorship has nothing to do with it. The real reason is Cuba not doing what the American government wants. If the Cuban government sold its natural resources cheap and let the people be used for the profit of big corporations, then Cuba would be best friends with the US. For decades the US was quite happy to give money, weapons and CIA training to dictatorships in Latin America. Simply because those dictatorships worked for the benefit of big American corporations. Cuba refused to do that, so they are the "bad guy".

A few countries have what could be called clowns in power, but what about Brazil and their seat in congress clown?

Bernice:
> what about Brazil and their seat in congress clown?

That goes to show that people are so fed up with politics that if they are going to have a circus act, they might as well put a real circus professional in the show.

The question is: Is the Brazilian clown better than Italy's porn star? Italians did elect La Cicciolina, a notorious porn star, into parliament.

Übergeek 바둑이: I'm glad there is a law on that.. Pavements are a lot clearer then they use to be. We also have laws here banning dogs from children's playground areas (the fenced/gated off variety) simply as some people just won't respect others. ... Yet at the same time, legislation in certain areas is disappearing. Some rules are just dumb and a waste of money.

Cuba does have trade with the UK. Not sure how much, but I know I can go to a traditional tobacconist and buy a Cuban cigar.

Übergeek 바둑이: I was in Cuba for vacation in 93',stayed at a resort formerly used by Russian millitary.The beaches were beautiful, but their hospitality industry was in its infancy. Apt buildings used bedsheets to shield the units from the balconies, workers were trucked in every morning jammed into openback trucks, lousy food, even lousier coffee, hoookers and cigar sellers jumped out of the bushes as you walked the streets...........the potential was there for a thriving beach vacation industry, not sure how it has come along in the years since.Very friendly people though

The Col:

> not sure how it has come along in the years since

Cuba is no paradise, but it is certainly better than it used to be. The big problem with Cuba is the disparity between how tourists live and how the locals live. Tourist resorts are really like a paradise. White coral sand beaches, 5 star hotels, great food, great music, great cigars, etc. For the locals it is a different story. There is a lot of poverty in Cuba and in many places people have seen little improvement in their lives in the last 20 years.

However, Cuba has certain things that no other Latin american country has. They have universal healthcare and everyone is entitled to the best healthcare the island can afford. It is so good that people go there for treatment from all over the world and "medical" tourism is one of the rising industries in Cuba. The healthcare system is one of the best in the world, in spite of the island's economic problems.

Cuba also has the best educational system in the western hemisphere. Every Cuban citizen is entitled to free education at any level, from kindergarten to post-doctorate degrees in universities. Compare that with the cost of education in Canada and the US and Cuba comes on top simply because it has a higher percentage of its population attending university. The only drawback to that is that people often have to work in occupations not even related to what they studied because the state cannot guarantee work for everyone. It was funny to be driven aroudn by a taxi driver with a Ph.D. in Spanish literature. High education means high expectations and many Cubans are unhappy with the lack of opportunity that the state can provide. Yet, they are educated, much more so than most other Latin American countries.

Cuba's biggest problems are a lack of infrastructure and viable manufacturing industries. The economic embargo left Cuba with little market for its exports, and the biggest consumer in the world (the US) cannot do business with Cuba. The situation will probably change in the next few years since the People's Republic of China has been investing heavily in Cuba and China is the new emergent market in the world.

The old guard (both in Cuba and the US) is aging, and with time their inflexible positions will give way on both sides. I doubt that the economic embargo will remain there for long and if George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger pass away then the main ideological opponents of a more open policy will not be there any more.

Übergeek 바둑이: you got to remember though, Cuba made their choices also, there didn't have to be an embargo.They didn't have to get in bed with the U.S.S.R. yeah yeah the USA are mean,evil and bad. but that was the reality of the situation. Again, just like Berlin, not too many were defecting to Cuba and or the Warsaw pact. never heard of anyone(except maybe Vesco) boating to Havana. The Cold war ? no one won? I think Eastern Europe won, sure bad things happened on both sides, but would we even have Brainking if the cold war was still on?

GTCharlie:

> Cuba made their choices also, there didn't have to be an embargo

Yes, Cuba made its choices. I think that Cuba becoming a socialist country was unavoidable. There are those who will say that if the US had taken a more moderate approach then maybe Cuba would not have gone over to ask for help from the USSR. I disagree. I think in the end Cuba would have ended up where it was, with or without pressure from the USA.

> the USA are mean,evil and bad.

I think that the Cold War had little to do with being good or bad. I think both the USA and the USSR saw an opportunity to acquire wealth and power. They went ahead to compete for territory, natural resources, etc. A lot of smaller, weaker countries got squeezed in between. Some countries became communist, others remained capitalist. In the end the USA remained strong and powerful on account of its massive banking and lending economics. The USSR collapsed because they relied in commodity production (oil, gas and steel) and commodity prices collapsed in the 1980s.

The USA did what it had to do to protect the wealth and power of those that run its country. It meant promoting fascism and dictatorship in those countries that fell under American influence. The Soviets tried to do the same, and failed miserably at it. Both the USA and the Soviet Union oppressed people, because that is how the powerful react when they want to retain control ovr the political and economic systems.

Today we have the aftermath of the Cold War. Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden, Iran's Ayatollahs, Fidel Castro, etc. These are men that got their start during the Cold War. Some fought for the USA, some for the Soviet Union. Others arose out of these countries failed foreign policies.

Once we strip ideological excuses (freedom, democracy, revolution, end of exploitation, etc.) the Cold War was an exercise in the pursuit of power and brutality. Ultimately the Cold War did not really end. It was merely put on hold. Soon enough Russia will rise again on account of its massive commodities production and the world's need for those commodities. China is getting richer day by day and eventually they will want to rise to the top of the echelon of power. The USA will react by trying to stop them, and the whole thing will start all over again. That is why these countries refuse to give up their nuclear weapons and their WMDs. They are insurance for the unavoidable "Cold War" that will return at some point. It is unavoidable because human nature is the same and the rich and powerful are as greedy as ever. In the end it is the poor and the innocent who pay the price. Millions died during the Cold War, and not even one of them was one of the rich and powerful who ran the show.

Übergeek 바둑이: And the Human experiment repeats itself , again and again.But you didn't address the defector thing.. who was climbing the Berlin Wall to go EAST??????? or windsurfing into Havana from Marathon Key?/

Imagine if China still clung to Chairman Mao's philosophy?

If you are trying to say that the cold war adversaries were the same and it wouldn't matter who came ahead, then there is nothing on this board but fraud and hypocrisy. Agree? Comrade?

GTCharlie:

> Cold war adversaries were the same
> fraud and hypocrisy

That is exactly my point. During the Cold War NOBODY was good.

The US can claim moral superiority but the reality is that the USA (through the CIA) promoted fascism and dictatorship in many countries. The USA (as well as the UK, Canada, and other western governments) subverted democracies when the governments elected were not ideologically aligned with American expectations. Governments were toppled only to be replaced by military dictatorships whose function was to exterminate left wing groups, unions and anyone opposed to the economic interests of big corporations. The USA declared war on countries both openly and subvertly. Millions of people were killed in the name of ideology (freedom and democracy) with the end result being big capitalist corporations making billions in profits. Capitalists are incapable of acknowledging that in order to keep capitalism alive they readily dispatched millions of people to their deaths, including anyone who dissented from the capitalist system. When those nice dictators sent left wingers to their deaths, they were killing dissidents, not some foreign element external to the system. What were the McCarthy era witch hunts if not the pursuit of people who dissented from capitalism?

Of course, everyone knows what Stalin did, or what Mao did? Power-hungry men will do anything to acquire even greater power. People on the other side of the Iron Curtain suffered too much. Millions were also killed and even more millions oppressed. Equality of all workers, revolution, the end of capitalist exploitation. They all have a nice ring to them, and they were the excuses used by Communists to exert power and brutality.

People are defined by their actions and in the end ideology is just empty talk. In any system all that we have to do is look at who acquired wealth and power. In communism it was the communist party elite. In capitalism it was the corporate elite. Everything else was (and still is) nothing but empty ideology. Higher principles have always been swept aside when it has become politically and economically convenient.

GTCharlie: The KGB managed to find people in the UK who would spy for them, acting in some cases as double agents. Some after being discovered yet escaped capture by the British authorities were found to be living in Russia.

Übergeek 바둑이: How many did McCarthy execute? or send to the Gulag? oh.. did he ruin their careers? awww poor Hollywood. Again please answer, what is the ratio of defectors? how many got shot escaping into East Germany? I dare say one side ... was a heck of a lot worse than the other.Again.. how does eastern europe feel? During the Cold War NOBODY was good. are you serious??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

(V): yeah, that kinda of happens to treasonous spies, on either sides. safer to defect

GTCharlie:

> How many did McCarthy execute? or send to the Gulag? oh.. did he ruin their careers? awww poor Hollywood. Again please answer, what is the ratio of defectors? how many got shot escaping into East Germany? I dare say one side ... was a heck of a lot worse than the other.Again.. how does eastern europe feel? During the Cold War NOBODY was good. are you serious??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


How many people were killed in Vietnam by carpet bombing, napalm, agent orange, etc.?

How many people wre killed in Korea by the allies?

And when the CIA propped up dictators in Latin America and Africa, and those dictators went onto kill thousands upon thousands, who did they do it for? What for?

Both sides were equally rotten. Just because Americans enjoyed a good life while the developing world got screwed, it does not mean that the comfortable life of the North American middle class was enjoyed by all. Capitalism brought as much misery and death as communism did. Capitalism succeded in stopping communism, at a very high price. The only way that price can be justified is if capitalism claims some form of ideological and moral superiority. Without that self-superiority, the actions of capitalist countries during the Cold War are reduced to mere exercises in oppression and brutality, as bad as what the communists inflicted.

> how does eastern europe feel?

Then, how does Latin America feel? Why do you think Latin Americans are electing left wing governments? Is it Cuba "infecting" their minds? Or is it the fact that after all the killing and brutality, capitalism failed to improve the lives of common people? 20 years after the end of the Cold War, people are as poor and living in injustice as much as they did before. In many places people are as disillusioned with capitalism as Eastern Europeans are with communism.

We live in a world out of balance, always stuck in ideological extremes. Each ideology claims moral superiority and is incapable of accepting its wrongdoings. Communists were wrong. Capitalists were wrong too. Both sides were wrong and both sides did terrible things. Neither side was good in the end.

GTCharlie: What about those that were caught in the middle???

What about the people in Europe as a whole that were crapping their pants over the fact that we were bang in the middle of the firing line is someone decided M.A.D. was a good idea?

We had American cruise missiles based in the UK.. Women from the UK then camped outside that base.. As they knew if someone got trigger happy that base would be targeted.

In the end, any country that thought the playing of countries (as happened on both sides) and the use of nuclear weapons as a means to avoid direct confrontation (a cowardly action) does not deserve to be called any better than any other country who took part in that mess called "the cold war". Millions died, were maimed, tortured any much more as a result of all sides playing 'Risk' with the world. Our whole planet is now more radioactive through 'boys' showing off their 'toys'.. In certain respects I wonder (as I don't know the science) whether the hundreds of atomic weapons detonated have in some ways contributed to the increase in Leukaemia levels??

... Strontium 90 being a by product ....

This week General Suharto, former US-backed Indonesian dictator and mass murderer for 34 years, died at the age of 86 with an estimated $30 billion squirreled away. Mass murderer Suharto left an appalling legacy of about 0.5-1 million Indonesians murdered (Communists, progressives, ethnic Chinese), 0.2 million East Timorese murdered out of a total population of 0.6 million in the East Timorese Genocide (1975-2002), goodness knows how many people killed in Aceh and West Irian (West Papua), terrorizing by brutal and corrupt military, rampant corruption and consequent rise of Islamist activism and (variously military- and police-complicit) terrorist activity against the Indonesian Christian minority (about 10,000 killed with about 100,000 refugees) (see:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-duin010202.shtml ) and recently against Western hotels and visitors (e.g. the 2003 Bali bombing that killed about 200 Western tourists).

(V): Does he have a single daughter?

The Col: Does she know the location of the bank accounts??