Vague_Boy Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 In other words, for a popular uprising similar to what is happening in various Middle Eastern countries? Except that that's not what's happening. Economic issues are at the heart of what's going on, not any desire for democracy. Egypt's Unrest May Have Roots in Food Prices Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I don't mean to protect Fidel Castro's brutal crackdown on those who've decided to voice their opposition against his new regime, but he has been often referred as a "benevolent dictator" for various reasons. Cuba still is one of the poorest countries in Latin America (still superior to Haiti) and that is because of the dependence on Soviet subsidies, but also the embargo imposed by the United States on the island nation. Not only that, the guy created universal education and universal healthcare for all of its citizens. That country has healthier and more literate citizens than the United States itself. It's quite amazing considering the standard of living of Cuba is still second world, to say the most. The most significant part of Castro's revolution was that it broke off from American hegemony in Latin America. That influenced a Venezuelan man four decades later to run for election in 2000. A bloke called Hugo Chavez. His successful administration has survived George Bush's attempt of overthrow in 2002, and influenced a "Bolivarian" revolution of socialist-inspired rises in independent democracy in Latin America. Subsequent to Chavez came Morales of Bolivia, Lula of Brazil, the Kirchners of Argentina, Ortega of Nicaragua, Zelaya of Honduras, Correa of Ecuador, and others. These are all opposed by the US due to the fact that their pro-domestic policies threaten US interests in the region. But since they were all elected, the region has achieved high economic growth. Since Chavez came into power, he bailed out 25% of the nation from abject poverty through various social reforms and establishment of welfare states. But America hates him because he nationalized all the oil. That practically bans US capitol from coming in to buy off all the assets held by the country. So what we're seing in Latin America is a far cry from the dictatorship of Cuba, but it was largely influenced by Castro. Judging by the fact that the majority of Cuba still backs the current regime under Raul Castro, I doubt that anything significant will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 With all due respect, donkey, this is complete nonsense. In what way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'd like to see the same thing happen in Myanmar/Burma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I'd like to see the same thing happen in Myanmar/Burma. Yup, especially now with Mrs. Suu Kyi out of house arrest. I cried when I saw the TV footage of her pop her head above the front gate of her house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I don't mean to protect Fidel Castro's brutal crackdown on those who've decided to voice their opposition against his new regime, but he has been often referred as a "benevolent dictator" for various reasons. Cuba still is one of the poorest countries in Latin America (still superior to Haiti) and that is because of the dependence on Soviet subsidies, but also the embargo imposed by the United States on the island nation. Not only that, the guy created universal education and universal healthcare for all of its citizens. That country has healthier and more literate citizens than the United States itself. It's quite amazing considering the standard of living of Cuba is still second world, to say the most. The most significant part of Castro's revolution was that it broke off from American hegemony in Latin America. That influenced a Venezuelan man four decades later to run for election in 2000. A bloke called Hugo Chavez. His successful administration has survived George Bush's attempt of overthrow in 2002, and influenced a "Bolivarian" revolution of socialist-inspired rises in independent democracy in Latin America. Subsequent to Chavez came Morales of Bolivia, Lula of Brazil, the Kirchners of Argentina, Ortega of Nicaragua, Zelaya of Honduras, Correa of Ecuador, and others. These are all opposed by the US due to the fact that their pro-domestic policies threaten US interests in the region. But since they were all elected, the region has achieved high economic growth. Since Chavez came into power, he bailed out 25% of the nation from abject poverty through various social reforms and establishment of welfare states. But America hates him because he nationalized all the oil. That practically bans US capitol from coming in to buy off all the assets held by the country. So what we're seing in Latin America is a far cry from the dictatorship of Cuba, but it was largely influenced by Castro. Judging by the fact that the majority of Cuba still backs the current regime under Raul Castro, I doubt that anything significant will happen. I wonder therefore why there are thousands of people coming north into central America with the intention of eventually crossing the border into the US? Could it be that they're not quite happy living in the new democratic wonderlands you paint such a rosy picture of? Castro in his revolutionary days was an out and out Communist and exported his commuinist ideaology by sending mercenaries to various parts of South America and also Africa where they killed large numbers of people opposed to them. As for Hugo Chavez, friend and associate of Iranian leader Dinnerjacket I understand he has great ambitions to make himself president of Venezuela for life. Now that aint democratic is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 ICuba still is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. it didn't used to be. In 1959, before Castro, it was one of the richest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eckerslike Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 ICuba still is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. it didn't used to be. In 1959, before Castro, it was one of the richest. Thats what you get after decades of US blockades and sanctions. You mustn't lean to the left in Uncle Sam's backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Thats what you get after decades of US blockades and sanctions. You mustn't lean to the left in Uncle Sam's backyard. Offering to play host to hostile nukes probably didn't help much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 get real. The Soviet Union dropped the equivalent-to-scale of about five Marshall Plans on Cuba in thirty years. None of them worked. They were all abject failures. The place still got poorer and poorer and poorer, because of its elitist communist system that similarly impoverished and bankrupted its erstwhile sponsor. Forget about the US embargo (oh and by the way, it's an embargo not a blockade, 'blockade' is a juvenile propagandist sound-bite). Nobody else wants to buy anything from Cuba either. They don't make hardly anything efficiently enough for anybody else to want it. That's what communism does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.