RIP Fidel Castro

Nope, but I am saying how do we determine what are included and how we are judging them. And how do we order importance? Is it worth having freedom of speech when you don't have a home, healthcare or education? The decision was taken to suspend some in favour of others and that the benefit in the long term would result in improved human rights overall.

And I am attempting to do that. I do believe that he did what he did with good intentions and that he believed what he was doing was right. And I do believe that he was able to help a lot of people in his country.

That's just one of the freedoms I mentioned, and I mention it because in countries like US and UK its not seen as something that should be given out to people in the same way as freedom of speech. People are not free to travel where they want. I was using it as an example of how every country picks and chooses what freedoms they want to hand out to people to keep them happy and benefit themselves, rather than actually making freedom for people the number one priority.

I'm not sure how something like freedom of speech and press safeguards other freedoms are right like access to a home, healthcare and education. It's prioritised deliberately as it gives people the illusion that they have been given the ultimate gift, and they are ultimately to blame for their own failures in life, rather than a government who has failed to support them in other basic needs.

So does mine.

Personally I support freedom of speech, but I'm not in a war environment with people trying to assassinate me on a daily basis.

Yes, kind of. But more complex, its not just persuasion he was afraid of, but coups, violent action, assassinations, all of which also go against human rights.

I was talking about how he attempted to get into politics through legitimate means which were quashed by the corrupt government at that time, so he knew about the extent people went to stop him getting into power (with the help of the US) when doing it fairly, so he knew the extent they would go to remove him once he was there.

Yes, although I think 50 years is too long, I think it goes a long way in explaining it. It is normal in a war situation for elections not to be held or for supporters of enemies to be punished.

And my answer is a hesitant yes. You keep trying to reduce his achievements down to simple labels like "socialized medicine" which you know they are greater than.

[quote]He was in charge for 50 years! Your argument is that what he did was reasonable because it might have worked if he'd only been allowed to oppress people for another half-century?[quote]

Yes, because the point is that the next 50 years would have been nothing like the previous 50 in terms of the world situation, the country is less at war, Obama looked like he wanted to improve relations and so on.

Not sure of this is relevant when there is a lot of evidence of the bad stuff he has done, and lots of people out there who openly criticise him that I am able to see. So this does not have an impact on by ability to form an opinion about him.

Well I choose to believe from evidence, articles and reports that Cuba has done a very good job in reducing infant mortality and done well in a lot of other areas of healthcare. It is not just the Cuban government saying these things, there is proof of a lot of good work they have done too, including stuff like Ebola. They often said aid to countries that need medical assistance where other countries including the US won't go.

Again, that's just what "you think", I'm going to choose to believe what I have read and that's that literacy rates have massively improved.

Again like the socialized healthcare statement, you're reducing the argument down to simple things to try and make my support seem sillier, when you know that it is for more than just a "higher literacy rate".

My guess is most of these people were upper class citizens how had benefited under the previous regime and thought they would now be better off in the US. If they wanted to leave I think he should have left them, but he was obviously worried about the image that this would create and the further implications that would arise from mass emigration.

__________________

Isn't killing people for disagreeing with them what countries like the US do constantly in their foreign policy, with places like Vietnam?

The were angered by Castro because he was so close to them, and that he was able to improve the country despite a US blockade.

What about a country like Israel responsible for mass human right abuses, why does the US continue to support them?

What about their support for Pinochet? Margaret Thatcher's support for him too for that matter?

How about their continued relations with countries like Saudi Arabia? When a recent dictator died there the UK flew a flag at Buckingham palace.

There are many countries with terrible leaders that commit many atrocities that have been supported and still are, because countries like the US and UK continue to profit off them. They only want to intervene when they can't benefit themselves.

fyi this post is just a joke that's making fun of the reactions to the deaths of bowie, prince, etc. it's just my default reaction whenever someone dies now. i think fidel was pretty bad. he did some positive things, but i wish leftists wouldn't feel the need to act like he was good.

__________________
letterboxd
criticker

I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved but here I go. Is your argument we should be for all citizen abusing dictators or come to the aid of all these countries?

I will always agree there are hypocrisy in who and how we deal with human right violations. I would hate to think you would use this as an excuse for thinking someone like Castro was a good leader.

__________________
Letterboxd

In today's age when young people endorse open mindedness and personal liberties....and bigotry and racism is rightly despised, there's still a lot of country-ism being aimed at America and American's. The hooray for Castro, is a backhanded way of saying they hate America and admire Castro for his staying power.

I'm for one am sick of people blaming America for all of humanities problems. Through out the course of history, all peoples and all nations have commented wrongs. America is a beacon of freedom. Countries like Cuba are dank prison cells where the population is controlled by one man's whims. No one person should have the right to control an entire country for life, that's a dictatorship, and an abomination to the free soul of mankind.

Twitter goes nuts over Canadian PM's Castro comments

The Canadian prime minister’s oddly warm remembrance of Fidel Castro set social media aflame Saturday as Castro’s many critics pilloried Justin Trudeau’s statement calling the dead dictator a controversial and “larger than life leader” but stopping far short of condemning his actions.
Trudeau has met Castro, and said his father considered the dictator a friend. Canada and Cuba maintained diplomatic relations during the U.S. embargo, and Canadians have long vacationed on the island.

“A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and health care of his island nation,” Trudeau said in a statement released by the Canadian government. “While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for 'el Comandante.' "

Trudeau’s comments stood in stark contrast to American elected officials, including Sen. Marcio Rubio, R-Fla., whose parents left Cuba before Castro came to power. “Is this a real statement or a parody? Because if this is a real statement from the PM of Canada it is shameful & embarrassing,” Rubio said in a statement on Twitter.

President-elect Donald Trump condemned Castro as a “brutal dictator ... (with a legacy of) firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights."

President Obama in his own statement extended a hand of friendship to the Cuban people and said "history will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him."

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, whose father fled Cuba during the Castro years, called Trudeau’s statement “disgraceful. Why do young socialists idolize totalitarian tyrants? Castro, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot — all evil, torturing murderers.”

Other Twitter users, as you’d expect, took it a lot further, using the #trudeaueulogies tag to mock the prime minister and satirize his comments.

"While controversial, Darth Vader achieved great heights in space construction & played a formative role in his son's life,” quipped Jason Markusoff, a correspondent for Canada’s Maclean's magazine.

Added Canadian sports commentator Mike Hogan: “Today we mourn the loss of Norman Bates, a family man who was truly defined by his devotion to his mother.”

And offered Australian news columnist Rita Panahi, “Although flawed, Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals, was a contributor to the arts & proud advocate for Germany.”
^^^ This bitch needs to be fired.







http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/twi...FVJ?li=BBnb7Kz

My point is that how come when someone like Fidel Castro dies, people are celebrating the death of a human rights abuser. Yet the same people have supported other people and regimes just as bad as him. Pinochet was worse and had US and UK support. Involvement in the Vietnam war was mainly down to being opposed to an ideology, yet we're being told we shouldn't murder people for disagreeing with you or having different ideas.

Saudi Arabia is a brutal country that murders all sorts of people and constantly violates human rights yet nobody cares because we are able to make great deals with them. It's all to do with economics, people are celebrating Castro's death because he was a communist, people are happy for people other horrible leaders to continue because they are capitalists and have good deals with the UK and US.

But that's not the reason why I think he is a good leader.

America is the biggest, most famous, and most involved country in the world. It's natural that the country with such huge involvement, through maths, is likely to have been involved in the largest number of bad deals/wars and so on. People are allowed to criticise them. I personally hate it when people feel they have to defend their country and naturally be proud of it, why?

Also, how did this post, with this bolded statement, get three reps?

Macho enough to kill himself? Really?

Very black & white viewpoints from maybe the grayest leader of our generation...

Africa is not conflicted about Fidel Castro’s legacy


Cuban leader Fidel Castro was a liberation icon in Africa and remained committed to the continent

With Fidel Castro gone, Africa’s liberation leaders lose a loyal friend and a hero of the people.

When Africa was a battleground between the Cold War powers, Cuba emerged as a friend of liberation movements. Cuba’s involvement in Africa went beyond the ideological standoff between right and left to a real helping hand: sending soldiers, doctors and teachers when post-colonial Africa was perhaps at its most vulnerable.

Some critics saw Castro’s role on the continent as a shrewd power play. An independent, post-colonial Africa with socialist leanings would have fortified the Cuba and the power bloc led by the Soviet Union. Many African nations formed part of the Non-Aligned Movement in a bid to remain above the fray of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

In Castro, nonetheless, African activists found a leader willing to share flaming rhetoric as well as practical guidance to freedom at a time when Africans had few political allies. Those liberation leaders became the founding fathers of modern Africa, and they never forgot Cuba’s help.

In grainy black and white images, Castro is seen smiling with Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Angola’s Augustinho Neto and Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere. Castro’s influence can be seen in Mozambican independence leader Samora Machel’s army fatigues and vociferous speeches. Cuba also became home to young African activists in exile.

In his own country, and to many in the West, Castro’s regime was a repressive, single-minded pursuit of a communist revolution, no matter the human cost, even while acknowledging his dynamic impact on the course of history over the last six decades. Many Africans, however, look to his leadership as one that sought equality and development, and they joined Castro in blaming sanctions for Cuba’s difficulties.


Cuban leader Fidel Castro was a liberation icon in Africa and remained committed to the continent

It was perhaps Cuba’s willingness to fight side-by-side with Africans that made him such a towering figure on the continent. In 1975, as Angola gained independence from Portugal, it offered a safe haven to then liberation movements hunted in their own countries: the African National Congress, the Zimbabwe African People’s Union and Namibia’s South West African People’s Organization.

When the apartheid government, aided by the United States, attacked Angola, it was Castro who came to the Africans’ aid. He sent 36,000 pushing the South African troops back while also training African soldiers. Cuban troops remained in Africa until 1988, when an apartheid South Africa agreed to withdraw and grant independence to Namibia. Castro’s defiance of the United States was seen as defiance of imperialism and neo-colonialism by African freedom fighters.

Nelson Mandela once reportedly said that when he heard of the Cuban army’s victories in Angola, he was heartened by the idea of a non-white army out-maneuvering a white army. Upon his release, Castro was one of the first leaders Mandela met with, and dismissed criticism of his friendship with the politically isolated Castro.

“We are now being advised about Cuba by people who have supported the apartheid regime these last 40 years,” he said on a visit to Havana in 1991. “No honorable man or woman could ever accept advice from people who never cared for us at the most difficult times.”

Archive footage shows just how wide Mandela grinned and how tightly he embraced his friend Castro. South Africa’s parliament broke out in song when Castro visited and an emotional Sam Nujoma, the founding president of Namibia thanked Castro for helping to free his people. Even among ordinary Africans, Castro remains a hero with many babies bearing the name Fidel or Castro.

Castro’s backing of some African leaders, however, alienated others. In 1977, Castro sent as many as 15,000 troops to back Mengistu Haile Mariam’s fight against Somalia. The Cuban involvement forced Somalia to cede control of the Ogaden region—a blow to an army that believed victory was in their grasp. Some Somalis are still bitter.







Castro’s commitment to Africa continued in post-liberation Africa. The country still trains African doctors, and continues to send doctors here. When Ebola ravaged Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, Cuba lead international aid efforts when other world powers fretted. It is a relationship likely to continue long after Castro’s death.







http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...Eaq?li=BBnb7Kz

When I saw that I would have used the Neg Rep button, oh we need that back, and I know Id receive it more than most.

Because I love my country, and I am proud to be an American.

That's fair enough if you are. But my question was more, why should people be automatically proud of their country and love it, and why should it be exempt from criticism of its bad side just because of the successes it has achieved.

I agree.

I have a better question for you. You've said in the past and implied in this thread, that you think it's an unfair human rights violation for America not to have open borders and take in all people who wish to move here. BUT you seem to admire Cuba a country where people are forbidden to leave. How do you justify that?

I didn't say that it's a human rights violation for America not to have open borders, but I am asking, why isn't it considered one? Human rights and what should be provided/afforded freely to the people are chosen carefully by governments in order to keep the people happy and benefit the country. If they didn't fulfil both of these, they wouldn't exist.

Also it's possible to admire something, but to dislike certain elements of it.

You dodged the question. I will restate it. You seem to imply that America should have open borders and that not to do so is morally wrong. I know you've posted such sentiments before. So how then can you justify admiring Castro, who forbids his people from leaving their own country?

I have a lot of sympathy for the young revolutionary. The one who wanted his country to stop being America's brothel and casino. The one who brought a lot of hope to the world when he started the revolution.

I have zero sympathy for the dictator, the one who killed opposers and incarcerated revolutionary comrates.

Fidel was both of them.

Why?

Right now Im having a hard time with this. Freedom? We are not the only country in the world that enjoys these freedoms.

Right in front of our own face we are deconstructing. We cannot afford to give blind loyalty anymore.

Sums what I think of this thread.