Fidel Castro dies

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Certainly, Castro used the threats against him to reinforce his power.
But in his case, the threats were so real it makes one wonder what he originally wanted... Have you even read any of those articles about the CIA's assassination attempts?
Here's one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasination-attempts

So yes, an authoritarian regime will jail dissidents. This doesn't change the fact that the US systematically supported dissidents in socialist countries. I don't know whether Castro was an innocent little lamb (probably not), but the big bad US was certainly out to get him.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No country on earth has ever had the means to interfere in the political and economic life of so many foreign nations throughout the world. And if you think otherwise the best case scenario is that you're blissfully ignorant of the world you live in. I have right next to me a 600-page book analysing the reports of the Church and Rockefeller committees. The first 300 pages detail CIA operations in Chili, Congo, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and... Cuba. Don't you remember the Bay of Pigs? And that is just the tip of the iceberg. One of my colleagues wrote her 500-page thesis on the USIA. Do you even know what the USIA is? You should because it's still here under another name. I did my research on the Reagan years. Remember Iran-Contra or do you really know absolutely nothing about history?
You say you are "tired of the coup nonsense" ? So am I. Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, Dominican Republic in 1961, Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, Chili in 1973... Are you so fucking ignorant that you've never heard of those? And those are the documented, rock-solid historical cases. What about Nicaragua? What about Venezuela, Panama, Grenada, Honduras... etc ? Do you know what the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine means? Do you think people who see the CIA's hand everywhere are paranoid and crazy? Ever heard of psychological operations? Of gray and black propaganda? Of the purpose of the National Endowment for Democracy?
Do you have any clue as to what it means when the US is actively trying to undermine a specific government? Any idea as to the power and money that can be channelled in a heartbeat to completely annihilate the government of a foreign nation? Because it seems to me you have no idea what Cuba was up against for half a freaking century.

And just what do you mean by that? What "lack of development" are you talking about? What do you mean by "standing on your own two feet" ? Do you not understand I'm saying that Cuba is doing all right in spite of everything?

They don't. But relentlessy focusing on Cuba's democratic failings prevent any objective analysis of its socio-economic system.
Which is, of course, the whole point.

 

Rippounet,

My frustration are the repeated efforts to minimize or handwave the jailing of dissidents and suppression of political speech in Cuba.  

Particularly with claims of US hypocrisy when I am among the people here who vocally challenges US governments on Police abuse of power and who advocates significant prison reform.

[Mladen]

I am thoroughly impressed as how some see USA as a beacon of democracy and defender of all those that are endangered. I will not speak about Cuba or even Lybia (as I hear, democracy is really doing wonders down there ) or even Syria. But, my own neck of the woods. 

The fact is that powerful countries will play with smaller ones. Plain and simple. Russia has been playing with Serbia for God knows how long and we are still in love with our brethren from Putinland. But, when I hear the support of US and EU to the Balkan leaders, all of whom are Castro/Tito/Stalin's little babies, I want to puke. In Montenegro, next NATO member, we have a man got rich from smuggling cigarettes. He has been in position of power for 27 years. He has the support of the West and regardless of what happens in Montenegro - journalists got beaten or killed, complete lack of legal system, corruption, rigged elections, violations of human rights, police brutality etc. Simply, who cares if there is a pawn to listen to us? Same is in Serbia. These men are getting incredibly rich, their wealth is borderline immeasurable and West, Western media and centers of power touts them as progressive leaders "that will bring their countries in 21st century".

So, what is the difference between Castro and current PMs of Serbia and/or Montenegro? Well, one dictator is on the right side and the other not so much. If a dictator serves the interests of Washington or Moscow, he can sleep peacefully? That is how democracy works? 

Simply, let we not all pretend that sometimes it is all in the presentational skills of powerful countries. Not all dictators are the same  Same are smart enough to have a good rapport with NATO, Washington or someone else.

[Zorral]

Many of the jailed dissidents are planned, directed and funded directly by the U.S. government and / or the Miami Cubans with the mission of overthrowing the Cuban government -- just a little bit of googling would expose this. Google "Basulto".  Google "Cuba pamphlet drop planes". Google "Cuba phony libraries librarians".  These are just a teeny number of the overtly hostile acts sponsored by the US and / or private citizens directed against another nation with the aim of destroying its government and independence.

There is no nation in the world that doesn't jail people who do that.

Under the circumstances these dupes and hysterics have been treated with a humanity that one is unlikely to find in any other nation that has been invaded by hostile forces.

Among the nations that invade to interfere in others' in order to get control of their resources and impose a particular way of life the US is number one.  Cuba has always been number one on our list since the colonial era when we weren't even yet a nation.  And we're still at it.  Cubans have a very long historical memory -- unlike, as we see here, this nation's citizens.

Among the many successful resistances that Cuba has performed over the years since the Revolution is that one in Angola, with the US CIA / military sided with the invasion against Angola independence by South African out of Namibia and Botswana in order to 1) control Angola's natural resources including oil and 2) impose and expand their apartheid system.  The stories of the many Cubans of that generation I've heard from their service there in Angola during its war of independence from Portugal, South Africa and the US are fascinating.  These are men who served in a huge variety of capacities from military action in the field -- one of whom has become a very good friend and is a world-class academic scholar of Ki-Kongo language and stone pictographs, and splits his time between Stanford and the University in Capetown.  Another served in the entertainment and recreation division, bringing Cuban music groups, etc. to the Angolan - Cuban troops.  He's currently a nabob in music in Cuba, touring Cuban groups around the world, including the U.S.  (The consequence of Cuban music meeting Angolan music is brilliant by now -- gads can Angolans play guitar!) 

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Many of the jailed dissidents are planned, directed and funded directly by the U.S. government and / or the Miami Cubans with the mission of overthrowing the Cuban government -- just a little bit of googling would expose this. Google "Basulto".  Google "Cuba pamphlet drop planes". Google "Cuba phony libraries librarians".  These are just a teeny number of the overtly hostile acts sponsored by the US and / or private citizens directed against another nation with the aim of destroying its government and independence.

There is no nation in the world that doesn't jail people who do that.

Under the circumstances these dupes and hysterics have been treated with a humanity that one is unlikely to find in any other nation that has been invaded by hostile forces.

Among the nations that invade to interfere in others' in order to get control of their resources and impose a particular way of life the US is number one.  Cuba has always been number one on our list since the colonial era when we weren't even yet a nation.  And we're still at it.  Cubans have a very long historical memory -- unlike, as we see here, this nation's citizens.

Among the many successful resistances that Cuba has performed over the years since the Revolution is that one in Angola, with the US CIA / military sided with the invasion against Angola independence by South African out of Namibia and Botswana in order to 1) control Angola's natural resources including oil and 2) impose and expand their apartheid system.  The stories of the many Cubans of that generation I've heard from their service there in Angola during its war of independence from Portugal, South Africa and the US are fascinating.  These are men who served in a huge variety of capacities from military action in the field -- one of whom has become a very good friend and is a world-class academic scholar of Ki-Kongo language and stone pictographs, and splits his time between Stanford and the University in Capetown.  Another served in the entertainment and recreation division, bringing Cuban music groups, etc. to the Angolan - Cuban troops.  He's currently a nabob in music in Cuba, touring Cuban groups around the world, including the U.S.  (The consequence of Cuban music meeting Angolan music is brilliant by now -- gads can Angolans play guitar!) 

 

 

So, Cuban jailing of political dissidents and suppresion of political speech is justified?

[DireWolfSpirit]

I couldnt say which dissidents were unjustly detained without knowing their individual cases Scott. But If any of these dissidents were covert CIA supported and plotting to overthrow the Cuban government than they probably arent innocent at that point. Those plotting to overthrow or assasinate Fidel, who got themselves caught, are probably recieving the level of justice the U.S. is giving its enemy combatants in nearby Guantanamo Prison.

I think Cuba has every right to defend itself from coup attempts, so at least these dissidents are not unjustly locked up. I cannot speak for every individual case as I wouldnt know every case, whether it be for Dakota pipeline protestors shot in the face or Cubans wrongly jailed over protesting low wages. Generally in those type of non CIA funded disputes I side with the activists 99% of the time.

[The guy from the Vale]

Scot, in an ideal world, it wouldn't be. But I find it curious that the Cuban system survived for half a century in spite of massive pressure by its neighboring superpower (compare and contrast with, e.g., Ukraine and Russia) and the general issues with dictatorships (which in essence have been analyzed back in 1513 by a certain Niccolo Machiavelli) while providing its citizens with surprisingly good national services. It's a dictatorship, and I'm opposed to dictatorships on principle; but it's the closest thing to a benevolent dictatorship I could think of. Indeed, it is the only counterexample to the Rules for Rulers I could think of, giving its people more than absolutely necessary in spite of being a dictatorship and still staying stable for so long. It's an incredible success story, all things considered.

[Rippounet]

39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, Cuban jailing of political dissidents and suppresion of political speech is justified?

As I like to say, explaining and condoning are two different things. Oppression should never be justified.

It's not easy to know what limits should be placed on free speech. Some would say that the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that government has a right to prevent, but I would rather believe that it is better for those who have unquestioned and almost unlimited power in their hands to err on the side of freedom.

[Zorral]

As others said, justifying and explaining are two different things.

Equating the two is derailing the subject of US's long history of interfering with Cuba, to Cuba's detriment.

It's also derailing the subject of holding Cuba to a different standard than any other country.

These are the sorts of distractions used in Cuban discussions and argument by participants who 1) have never been to Cuba (and even likely don't know many Cubans, or if they do, only a couple of hardliner Miami Cubans); 2) don't know the history of Cuba, little of the history of the US, and even less of Cuba-North American relations since the 16th century. Equally likely these participants are people who don't read or speak Spanish, and instead of presenting well-documented citations for their counterclaims, instead throw out "Well, then, how about hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?" They are basically demanding -- and informed -- point of view do all the work of countering them in a form that is coherent, structured and intelligent, while yet not holding themselves to that same obligation.

I don't mind having this sort of discussion -- but only with people who do as much work as I do to present the counters out of well-documented, factual, empirical, historic and political evidence.  The empirical evidence over decades have shown those who are hostile of Cuba tend to be short on all the above.  There's something about Cuba that turns many people irrational.  

 

[Zorral]

Very quiet in Havana.  It's unthinkable that Havana is without music.  Unthinkable.  Even when people were starving during the Special Period, people were singing, dancing and making music.  In fact it was the Second Golden Age of Cuban Music, which went all over the world.

It's fairly quiet here too, on the Northern Front. 

Even the Blatherers In Chief of public radio and the 'mainstream' media, basically blown their Fidel blather wads over the weekend, are seemingly baffled as to what to do or say now, especially as no one knows what the orange will do. All they came up with this morning is JetBlue's first commercial flight of this morning to Havana. 

What is more baffling, is that across the board, no matter what perspective is held about the Revolution and Cuba by the talking head, it seems to occur to none of them that what happens next with Cuba does not depend on either the orange or the US generally. In the end the Cuban government decides. 

With the orange being so thin-skinned, so inexperienced with global realpolitic and diplomacy, and caring so little, the Cuban government might decide for itself that dismantling some of what Obama negotiated isn't a bad idea. Keep the enemy as far away from us as possible! 

In the meantime other nations will continue investing and establishing themselves in the various segments of the Cuban society as they've been doing for a long time. The persistence of the media's depiction of Cuba the sleeping beauty that can only be animated by the kiss of the prince is revealing of profound willful ignorance not only of Cuba but of all nations not the US -- and of the US itself too, for that matter.

Cuba and the Revolution have survived everything thrown at it since 1959. Why do we assume it's not going to survive the orange too? It's got over a half century of experience with and success against the US. Cuba has a very long historical-political memory. The US has neither.

[Zorral]

Speaking of dissidents -- keep in mind the last execution ordered and carried out by the Cuban government, and the first one in at least two decades, was that of General Arnaldo T. Ochoa Sánchez in 1989.  He was a very close friend of Fidel's, an intimate, part of the government as well as highly placed in the Cuban military.  He'd been with the Revolution and Fidel in the mountains.

But he was executed for treason, which very particularly consisted of running drugs.

Drugs are absolute anathema in Cuba.

He is named by those who hate the Cuban government a dissident. As one sees from articles in publications such as the Miami Herald, it is alleged that Ochoa was executed, and Interior Minister Jose Abrantes sentenced to a 20-year prison term, to cover up high level Castro brothers involvement in the drug smuggling trade. 

[House Balstroko]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Certainly, Castro used the threats against him to reinforce his power.
But in his case, the threats were so real it makes one wonder what he originally wanted... Have you even read any of those articles about the CIA's assassination attempts?
Here's one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/26/fidel-castro-cia-cigar-assasination-attempts

So yes, an authoritarian regime will jail dissidents. This doesn't change the fact that the US systematically supported dissidents in socialist countries. I don't know whether Castro was an innocent little lamb (probably not), but the big bad US was certainly out to get him.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. No country on earth has ever had the means to interfere in the political and economic life of so many foreign nations throughout the world. And if you think otherwise the best case scenario is that you're blissfully ignorant of the world you live in. I have right next to me a 600-page book analysing the reports of the Church and Rockefeller committees. The first 300 pages detail CIA operations in Chili, Congo, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and... Cuba. Don't you remember the Bay of Pigs? And that is just the tip of the iceberg. One of my colleagues wrote her 500-page thesis on the USIA. Do you even know what the USIA is? You should because it's still here under another name. I did my research on the Reagan years. Remember Iran-Contra or do you really know absolutely nothing about history?
You say you are "tired of the coup nonsense" ? So am I. Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, Dominican Republic in 1961, Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, Chili in 1973... Are you so fucking ignorant that you've never heard of those? And those are the documented, rock-solid historical cases. What about Nicaragua? What about Venezuela, Panama, Grenada, Honduras... etc ? Do you know what the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine means? Do you think people who see the CIA's hand everywhere are paranoid and crazy? Ever heard of psychological operations? Of gray and black propaganda? Of the purpose of the National Endowment for Democracy?
Do you have any clue as to what it means when the US is actively trying to undermine a specific government? Any idea as to the power and money that can be channelled in a heartbeat to completely annihilate the government of a foreign nation? Because it seems to me you have no idea what Cuba was up against for half a freaking century.

And just what do you mean by that? What "lack of development" are you talking about? What do you mean by "standing on your own two feet" ? Do you not understand I'm saying that Cuba is doing all right in spite of everything?

They don't. But relentlessy focusing on Cuba's democratic failings prevent any objective analysis of its socio-economic system.
Which is, of course, the whole point.

 

I'm definitely not ignorant of what's going on. If you seriously believe that the US is responsible for all of those then you have a poor grasp of history. The world is a much more complicated place with so many intricacies to it. Labelling everything a coup is doing disservice to all the struggles that went on. 

You mention the 1953 coup, but ignore the fact that the person who came into power to replace the Shah did so by a coup himself. 

You mentioned Vietnam as well, but ignore the fact that the Vietcong was also backed by the Soviet Union and CCP. 

Even Castro's rise to power was technically through a coup as he overthrew the previous government. Should 1959 be labelled a Soviet coup?

Plenty of countries are capable and most certainly do interfere in global matters. The US may have the greatest reach but it is not the only actor.

I've never once suggested that the US is innocent, but it's pretty obvious that the attempted coups that keep getting brought up are an excuse to silence dissent. Have you ever wondered why most countries where those things are mentioned fare poorly in democratic circles. It.s easy to label everyone who disagrees with you as a "paid western agent" and its a very cheap tactic. By siding with this you are essentially telling people that if they disagree with their government, they are puppets. 

Erdogan did it this year, Maduro as well, in fact so did China with the Hong Kong protests. Iran did it back in 2009 during the protests. I have quite a few Iranian friends and most thought very poorly of Ahmadinejad. 

In fact someone even suggested the same with Cuba, as if there would be no legitimate grievances with Castro's regime. I remember reading an article about how Cuba accused the CIA or trying to forment dissent by promoting rock music. That's just ridiculous. There are so many American bands that are critical of US foreign policy. Are they working for someone else? Should Rage Against the Machine, Green Day, Red Hot Chili Peppers all be banned because they are critical of the government? I'm only using some popular ones but they are plenty in metal circles as well.

How is it possible that in a world with nearly 200 countries, only one government is interested in organising coups? Humans are humans at the end of the day, largely driven by similar motifs. How do you get an outcome where governments are sweet and noble, if you have populations that engages in all kinds of criminal activity on a daily basis? This is real life not the LOTR. 

As to my last point about the "lack of development", I said that Cuba's achievements or lack of are a result of its own policies. The embargo should not figure into the discussion. Was the embargo unnecessary? Sure. Is it the reason Cuba stagnated, as claimed by the government? No

 

[Rippounet]

29 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

If you seriously believe that the US is responsible for all of those then you have a poor grasp of history.

It.s easy to label everyone who disagrees with you as a "paid western agent" and its a very cheap tactic. By siding with this you are essentially telling people that if they disagree with their government, they are puppets.

You're deliberately missing the point. By putting a colossal economic pressure and systemically providing huge amounts of financial, logistical and -quite often- military support to dissenters in countries whose regime the US does not approve of, it pretty much makes it impossible for those regimes to function democratically.

Cuba is pretty much the perfect example of this. I honestly don't know whether Castro ever had any intention of introducing democracy to his country ; the evidence would seem to go against such a theory. But then, how will we ever know since the US made certain that this would never be possible? The US opposed Castro pretty much from the start, and the threat of a coup was simply too important for him to take a chance.

Your argument (which has basically been the US's official position on the subject throughout history) is that the US is only aiding dissenters, not creating them. This is intellectually dishonest for two reasons. First, dissent exists in all countries and all regimes, so it's always possible to find an opposition group and artifically increase its importance. Second, the record shows that the US does in fact create dissent by providing money to those who are willing to take arms against their government.

The very fact that you would parrot the usual bullshit shows you have much to learn about history. Start by reading the Church Committee report, will ya?

29 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

In fact someone even suggested the same with Cuba, as if there would be no legitimate grievances with Castro's regime. I remember reading an article about how Cuba accused the CIA or trying to forment dissent by promoting rock music. That's just ridiculous.

Ridiculous indeed.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CIA_and_the_Cultural_Cold_War

29 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

How is it possible that in a world with nearly 200 countries, only one government is interested in organising coups?

Of course it's not. It simply is the one with the greatest means to do so.

29 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

As to my last point about the "lack of development", I said that Cuba's achievements or lack of are a result of its own policies. The embargo should not figure into the discussion.

Having the world's greatest economic power imposing an embargo (and pressurizing its allies into imitating it) on a small Carribean country which happens to be one of its closest neighbors does not figure into the discussion?

Sure.

[maarsen]

One thing you have to understand about Cuba is that it was never a wealthy country. Cuba was poor long before Castro took power. The industrial infrastructure of Cuba is not from the late 1950's but from the 1920's and 30's. While Cuba was a US controlled nation, very little investment was put into the country. I work with machinery and I can tell how old it is and when it was built. The US embargo did little to put Cuba into poverty. The US did that long before Castro took power. 

The first time I went to Cuba, I was surprised to see IBM computers, Coca-Cola and other products from American corporations readily available.  Now you don't see them, but Japanese, Chinese, and Canadian products are used in Cuba. 

Cuba is not an industrialized country. Most of the economy is based on agriculture. This is a 19th century economy and has been from the 19th century onward. If Castro has one big failing it is that he was unable to change this simple fact. Cuba was looted for a long time and has not been able to recover. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

17 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Cuba is not an industrialized country. Most of the economy is based on agriculture. This is a 19th century economy and has been from the 19th century onward. If Castro has one big failing it is that he was unable to change this simple fact. Cuba was looted for a long time and has not been able to recover. 

I think Cuba was in a similar situation to New Zealand - just as Britain bought all the meat and dairy products we could produce (until 1973), the Soviet Union bought all the sugar Cuba could produce (until 1991). This meant that there was little incentive to diversify (and in any case, other countries already had industry covered).

Curiously, the response of both countries has been to push tourism as a money earner, to supplement the all-important agriculture.

[House Balstroko]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You're deliberately missing the point. By putting a colossal economic pressure and systemically providing huge amounts of financial, logistical and -quite often- military support to dissenters in countries whose regime the US does not approve of, it pretty much makes it impossible for those regimes to function democratically.

Cuba is pretty much the perfect example of this. I honestly don't know whether Castro ever had any intention of introducing democracy to his country ; the evidence would seem to go against such a theory. But then, how will we ever know since the US made certain that this would never be possible? The US opposed Castro pretty much from the start, and the threat of a coup was simply too important for him to take a chance.

Your argument (which has basically been the US's official position on the subject throughout history) is that the US is only aiding dissenters, not creating them. This is intellectually dishonest for two reasons. First, dissent exists in all countries and all regimes, so it's always possible to find an opposition group and artifically increase its importance. Second, the record shows that the US does in fact create dissent by providing money to those who are willing to take arms against their government.

The very fact that you would parrot the usual bullshit shows you have much to learn about history. Start by reading the Church Committee report, will ya?

Ridiculous indeed.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20161004-was-modern-art-a-weapon-of-the-cia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_CIA_and_the_Cultural_Cold_War

Of course it's not. It simply is the one with the greatest means to do so.

Having the world's greatest economic power imposing an embargo (and pressurizing its allies into imitating it) on a small Carribean country which happens to be one of its closest neighbors does not figure into the discussion?

Sure.

First of all, if the US truly wanted Castro gone, he would have been removed. Maybe not during the Cold War, as it would have increased tension with the Soviet Union further, but definitely during the 90's. As you keep on saying, the US definitely had the capability of doing so, and it may have tried so in the past (like the Bay of Pigs). That doesn't change the fact that Castro used that as an excuse to impose his will on the island for over 50 years. many of the supposed coups were used to boost his popularity, just like that clown Maduro is still doing in Venezuela. 

Why do you think banning artists from expressing their opinion is the right thing to do? Should the US arrest/ban anyone who criticizes the government? Why haven't Chomsky, Alex Jones, Michael Moore all been arrested? Why are most artists still allowed to perform, while in countries like China they are heavily regulated? Metallica was barred from playing the song Master of Puppets because the government felt it might promote dissent, despite the fact that the song is about drugs controlling one's life.

Do you know which other country is surrounded by hostile nations? Israel, and they are doing great from an economic and technological standpoint. Sure, you could say that they received a lot of aid from western nations and you would be right, but that money could have easily been squandered. The real reason Israel was a success is because the country developed it's own technology and was able to turn an inhospitable environment into arable land. Today it's also a leader in research. 

Israel has far more disadvantages than Cuba; it's surrounded by mostly hostile nations with which its been at war in some form or the other since it's formation, a lot of the land is arid making agriculture somewhat difficult.

Cuba has not had a war/major issues since the Cuban missile crisis (1962). It may be in the shadow of a large hostile nation, but it's not in a war with it, not to mention it has plenty of other countries to trade with to the South and East. It was also the poster boy of communism, meaning it received a lot of aid from the Soviet Union. 

Cuba is also a tropical/subtropical island which has easy access to water, unlike Israel which needs to process it. 

Why is there also such a huge discrepancy between the development of North and South Korea? After all, the North should have all the advantages, it's next to the two largest communist nations. If there was anything it needed, China/SU could just roll it across the border. South Korea only borders the North, with which it has no diplomatic relation, yet still manages to outclass it in pretty much everything. 

Then we have Vietnam, a country still communist in name only. I've been to Vietnam and there are a lot of people who still  refer to Ho Chi Minh City as Saigon. Why do you think that's the case? They told me that while they dislike the war and the death toll it brought, the biggest damage to the country was brought forth by the communist regime. 

As to your last point, it's really unfair that you just dismiss what I wrote as propaganda. I've never insulted you and respect your opinion, despite the fact that I disagree with you on most points. 

 

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

First of all, if the US truly wanted Castro gone, he would have been removed.

Yes and no. As you point out, the CIA operated under certain constraints. It had to avoid what could be seen as an act of war during the Cold War, and the need to remove Castro was considerably lessened after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Also, checks and balances...

28 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

That doesn't change the fact that Castro used that as an excuse to impose his will on the island for over 50 years.

It doesn't, nor did I said it did. But even tyrants need the support of other branches of government (i.e. the military) lest they move from authoritarianism to totalitarianism. That support is easy to get when the outside threat is obviously real.

Don't forget that this conversation started to explain why Fidel seems surprisingly popular in Cuba and around the world. I think I've provided tons of answers.

28 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

Do you know which other country is surrounded by hostile nations? Israel, and they are doing great from an economic and technological standpoint. Sure, you could say that they received a lot of aid from western nations and you would be right, but that money could have easily been squandered. The real reason Israel was a success is because the country developed it's own technology and was able to turn an inhospitable environment into arable land. Today it's also a leader in research. 

Israel has far more disadvantages than Cuba; it's surrounded by mostly hostile nations with which its been at war in some form or the other since it's formation, a lot of the land is arid making agriculture somewhat difficult.

Cuba has not had a war/major issues since the Cuban missile crisis (1962). It may be in the shadow of a large hostile nation, but it's not in a war with it, not to mention it has plenty of other countries to trade with to the South and East. It was also the poster boy of communism, meaning it received a lot of aid from the Soviet Union. 

Cuba is also a tropical/subtropical island which has easy access to water, unlike Israel which needs to process it.

Hang on, when did we move to discussing the economic successes of socialism? Because I would never argue that socialism is ideal for economic development or innovation. Socialism is great for some things and sucks at others.

But the comparison is still interesting. The help that Cuba got from the Soviet Union and the help that Israel got from abroad are of a totally different order of magnitude. We're talking millions versus billions here, for decades.

However you picked the worst possible nation to make your point. I hope you're sitting down, I'll tell you a secret.
Israel is socialist.
It's so hardcore socialist that it has performed small-scale communist experiments before it even existed (one could argue the state itself was bordeline communist when it was created). Some of which exist to this day.

28 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

Why is there also such a huge discrepancy between the development of North and South Korea?

North Korea is a clusterfuck of a totalitarian country. It's in a class of its own. Not in a good way.

28 minutes ago, House Balstroko said:

As to your last point, it's really unfair that you just dismiss what I wrote as propaganda. I've never insulted you and respect your opinion, despite the fact that I disagree with you on most points. 

Who said anything about propaganda? Anyone having been to Cuba will quickly remember that it used to be America's #1 touristic destination. Remember Hemingway? What do you think happened, eh?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rippount,

Is there a Marxist-Leninist nation-state that hasn't hasn't had a totalitarian regime before (and frequently after) it abandoned pure Marxist-Leninist style command economies with severe repression of vocal dissent as part of the package with their totalitarianism? 

I agree that most successful economies are a blend of socialism and capitalism.  But pure command economies that attempt to end all private property ownership tend to end poorly for all concerned.

[James Arryn]

HS-

How did Mossadegh come to power via a coup? 

[Commodore]

we need to revive the Radio Free Europe model and give people in these repressive regimes uncensorable internet access

get with Elon Musk or whomever and make it happen (near-Earth satellites, mesh networks, etc.)

In theory I'm all for free trade with the Cuban people, but what Obama did is bankrolling Raul's military police state (stupidly bailed out by the US after Cuba's sugar daddy Venezuela went tits up). Raul takes a cut of everything. There has to be a better way. 

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is there a Marxist-Leninist nation-state that hasn't hasn't had a totalitarian regime before (and frequently after) it abandoned pure Marxist-Leninist style command economies with severe repression of vocal dissent as part of the package with their totalitarianism?

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yes, Marxist-Leninist governments have systematically proved to be anti-democratic. I personally tend to think that Marxism-Leninism is one of the main sources of the problem.

But as far as Cuba is concerned, one question that has been debated in academia over the years is whether its turn to Marxism-Leninism wasn't the result of bad American policy/diplomacy. The crux of this theory is that the Eisenhower administration would have taken the decision to topple Castro in early 1959 while Castro only started turning to the Soviet Union in late 1959, and openly embraced Marxism-Leninism in 1961. There are also the facts that in April 1959 Eisenhower refused to see Castro when he visited the United States, and that Castro had never been close to the Cuban communists before taking power to begin with.
Recent research shows that it's not so simple. Not only did the US initially support Castro against Batista (and quickly recognized Castro's new regime), but the early 1959 decision to topple Castro may never have happened. In other words, recent research puts the blame on Castro and suggests that he deliberately soured his relationship with the United States to have an excuse to turn to the Soviet Union.

See: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic915944.files/165789.pdf

I would argue for a middle-ground. It's obvious that Castro deliberately made things difficult with the US, but it's also true that the US was quick to make plans against him (late 1959, if not early 1959), while the alliance between Cuba and the Soviet Union was still in the works. Also, Castro's initial reluctance to embrace Marxism-Leninism and an alliance with the Soviet Union may have been primarily a matter of public opinion, but it still reflects the fact that he was unsure as to the direction he could steer his country in ; while he may have viewed himself as a new Bolivar, he seemed pragmatic enough to consider things carefully and it's not impossible that he could have been willing to discuss things with Eisenhower -if not Nixon.

My non-professional opinion on this whole mess would be that Castro did favor the Soviet Union from the start, but that Eisenhower made things easier for him. Also, whatever Castro's faults were, it remains clear that the US decided to despose him long before Cuba was Marxist-Leninist ; this isn't the story of a little lamb and a big bad wolf but of two cats hissing and spitting at each other from the very beginning.