Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Was Fidel Castro bad for Cuba?

Archaholic
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 3:43:03 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

That interview was funny.

Well, dictatorship is bad for any country. Nevertheless, in that specific case I think it was good since, as Galloway said, Cuba could have been influenced by the rules of US, and as we know, most of the latin american countries didn't end very well with such a bad influence. Probably Chile was the only country that took advantage of the economic system imposed by the US. Still, I think the dictatorship in Cuba was the best decision Fidel Castro made at that specific moment in which the US wanted to impose a complete and counterproductive american system on the country.

Currently, I don't see any reason to keep the dictatorship. So, as the mummy has just died, this is the opportunity for Fidel's brother to make profound changes in Cuba in order to bring democracy to the island.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 6:39:55 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

I didnt watch the video, but to your wide open question it depends upon the lense one is looking through. One could argue that Castro could be very good in the long run. From a Nationalistic stand point the expropriation of land and assets from foreign control has set Cuba up to be a Cuban owned enterprise versus a US corporate controlled nation. Of course they would have to move to an more open nation to realize that potential.

From a freedom standpoint he has been a disaster.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 10:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 3:43:03 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

That interview was funny.

Well, dictatorship is bad for any country. Nevertheless, in that specific case I think it was good since, as Galloway said, Cuba could have been influenced by the rules of US, and as we know, most of the latin american countries didn't end very well with such a bad influence. Probably Chile was the only country that took advantage of the economic system imposed by the US. Still, I think the dictatorship in Cuba was the best decision Fidel Castro made at that specific moment in which the US wanted to impose a complete and counterproductive american system on the country.

Currently, I don't see any reason to keep the dictatorship. So, as the mummy has just died, this is the opportunity for Fidel's brother to make profound changes in Cuba in order to bring democracy to the island.

What?
Pinochet's economic policies were a disaster
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org...
Devilry
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 11:03:47 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
Very interesting interview. I know nothing about it personally, but that dude makes some compelling arguments.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2016 11:05:18 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I mean I definitely think America is pretty much one giant shthole and all the ills of the world are born there.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Archaholic
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 12:48:50 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 10:50:51 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 3:43:03 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

That interview was funny.

Well, dictatorship is bad for any country. Nevertheless, in that specific case I think it was good since, as Galloway said, Cuba could have been influenced by the rules of US, and as we know, most of the latin american countries didn't end very well with such a bad influence. Probably Chile was the only country that took advantage of the economic system imposed by the US. Still, I think the dictatorship in Cuba was the best decision Fidel Castro made at that specific moment in which the US wanted to impose a complete and counterproductive american system on the country.

Currently, I don't see any reason to keep the dictatorship. So, as the mummy has just died, this is the opportunity for Fidel's brother to make profound changes in Cuba in order to bring democracy to the island.

What?
Pinochet's economic policies were a disaster
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org...

Of course it was a disaster since it was an experiment. The chilean goverment should have intervened in the economics, that is true, but the influence of the Chicago boys remained. There you have the results, Chile is a country who is doing well, over other countries in the region. I am not chilean, just so you know, but I visited its cities, and compared to others in latin america, they are better.

BR
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 12:58:43 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 12:48:50 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 10:50:51 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 3:43:03 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

That interview was funny.

Well, dictatorship is bad for any country. Nevertheless, in that specific case I think it was good since, as Galloway said, Cuba could have been influenced by the rules of US, and as we know, most of the latin american countries didn't end very well with such a bad influence. Probably Chile was the only country that took advantage of the economic system imposed by the US. Still, I think the dictatorship in Cuba was the best decision Fidel Castro made at that specific moment in which the US wanted to impose a complete and counterproductive american system on the country.

Currently, I don't see any reason to keep the dictatorship. So, as the mummy has just died, this is the opportunity for Fidel's brother to make profound changes in Cuba in order to bring democracy to the island.

What?
Pinochet's economic policies were a disaster
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org...

Of course it was a disaster since it was an experiment. The chilean goverment should have intervened in the economics, that is true, but the influence of the Chicago boys remained. There you have the results, Chile is a country who is doing well, over other countries in the region. I am not chilean, just so you know, but I visited its cities, and compared to others in latin america, they are better.

BR

These improvements only happened after Pinochet's "reforms" were rolled back in the 1990s.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:01:31 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Only the lobotomized or the insane could reach the conclusion that Castro was not bad for Cuba. On the issue of Castro's legacy, the mere fact that in his later years he was little more than a benign corpse in a uniform whose marginal political, and intellectual fortitude had been precipitously eroded by old age cannot whitewash the abysmal reality of the terror he visited upon the Cuban people for what represents the better part of the 21st century.

To even ask the question of whether Castro was bad for Cuba is vacuous in its own rite, as it is so patently obvious. Young (stupid, ignorant) people often forget the very real realities, or, more accurately, failed to learn the dismal reality of what Castro *actually* did to Cuba. The man was a violent despot who ruled through fear, violence, and death; whose repression of political opposition knew no bounds, even extending to the point where he betrayed one of his few true friends in a fashion worthy of Joseph Stalin (i.e. sending Che to Bolivia); and whose regard for human dignity in any form never was. This does not even begin to do justice to the expanse of horror that Castro's reign visited upon Cuba.
Tsar of DDO
Archaholic
Posts: 255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:32:19 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 12:58:43 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 12:48:50 AM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 10:50:51 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 3:43:03 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

That interview was funny.

Well, dictatorship is bad for any country. Nevertheless, in that specific case I think it was good since, as Galloway said, Cuba could have been influenced by the rules of US, and as we know, most of the latin american countries didn't end very well with such a bad influence. Probably Chile was the only country that took advantage of the economic system imposed by the US. Still, I think the dictatorship in Cuba was the best decision Fidel Castro made at that specific moment in which the US wanted to impose a complete and counterproductive american system on the country.

Currently, I don't see any reason to keep the dictatorship. So, as the mummy has just died, this is the opportunity for Fidel's brother to make profound changes in Cuba in order to bring democracy to the island.

What?
Pinochet's economic policies were a disaster
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org...

Of course it was a disaster since it was an experiment. The chilean goverment should have intervened in the economics, that is true, but the influence of the Chicago boys remained. There you have the results, Chile is a country who is doing well, over other countries in the region. I am not chilean, just so you know, but I visited its cities, and compared to others in latin america, they are better.

BR

These improvements only happened after Pinochet's "reforms" were rolled back in the 1990s.
I am not talking about Pinochet, but Chicago Boys' legacy on chilean economics.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:21:52 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
After overthrowing Batista, Castro had a real chance to transform Cuba into a free market liberal democracy. Instead, he established a communist dictatorship (that almost never works out well for the economy in the end) and then made economic conditions for his people even worse by picking a fight with a Superpower (and not just any old Superpower, but one that was just a few miles away from Cuba), resulting in a half-century long embargo of the island.
Castro could've built a relatively prosperous Cuba with a solid human rights record. Instead, he let ideology blind him, resulting in the s**thole of a country that we call Cuba today. The only good things that come from Cuba nowadays are cigars and lung cancer vaccines, which is a bit ironic if you think about it.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:41:45 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:21:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
After overthrowing Batista, Castro had a real chance to transform Cuba into a free market liberal democracy.

When US companies owned much of the means of production that wouldn't have been a revolution.

Instead, he established a communist dictatorship (that almost never works out well for the economy in the end) and then made economic conditions for his people even worse by picking a fight with a Superpower (and not just any old Superpower, but one that was just a few miles away from Cuba), resulting in a half-century long embargo of the island.

No, the US picked the fight with Cuba - the US could have extended the olive branch to apologize for the colonialism. If you know anything about Cuban history the US has been trying to control it since they kicked the Spanish out. The US has a history of overthrowing Latin American governments that were no threat to the US.

Castro could've built a relatively prosperous Cuba with a solid human rights record. Instead, he let ideology blind him, resulting in the s**thole of a country that we call Cuba today. The only good things that come from Cuba nowadays are cigars and lung cancer vaccines, which is a bit ironic if you think about it.

No, the US embargoed Cuba. Your argument is about politics not economics. You think that just because they were communists they were doomed to fail. You don't take into account history before Castro or current trends that say Cuba has the best education and healthcare in all of Latin America DESPITE the US trying to destroy them.

You pretend Cuba could have just turned into America junior after kicking the US out and fighting against the US since Spain. That is delusional thinking. As the guy in the OP video says, had Castro not been so paranoid of the very real threat of US overthrow he could have focused on more democratic right principles.

By the way, do you think a liberal democracy like the US should engage in assassinating leaders and investing in coup d'etats?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:47:12 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 1:01:31 AM, YYW wrote:
Only the lobotomized or the insane could reach the conclusion that Castro was not bad for Cuba.

The question is was he worst than the system of US colonizing that was before him, the answer is yes. http://www.historyofcuba.com...

On the issue of Castro's legacy, the mere fact that in his later years he was little more than a benign corpse in a uniform whose marginal political, and intellectual fortitude had been precipitously eroded by old age cannot whitewash the abysmal reality of the terror he visited upon the Cuban people for what represents the better part of the 21st century.

To even ask the question of whether Castro was bad for Cuba is vacuous in its own rite, as it is so patently obvious. Young (stupid, ignorant) people often forget the very real realities, or, more accurately, failed to learn the dismal reality of what Castro *actually* did to Cuba. The man was a violent despot who ruled through fear, violence, and death; whose repression of political opposition knew no bounds, even extending to the point where he betrayed one of his few true friends in a fashion worthy of Joseph Stalin (i.e. sending Che to Bolivia); and whose regard for human dignity in any form never was. This does not even begin to do justice to the expanse of horror that Castro's reign visited upon Cuba.

3 things, first, you repeating your same vague point multiple times using different phrases is not convincing. 2nd if you don't like violent marxists what do you care about Che? 3rd, see the the link provided.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:48:56 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:47:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 1:01:31 AM, YYW wrote:
Only the lobotomized or the insane could reach the conclusion that Castro was not bad for Cuba.

The question is was he worst than the system of US colonizing that was before him, the answer is yes. http://www.historyofcuba.com...

On the issue of Castro's legacy, the mere fact that in his later years he was little more than a benign corpse in a uniform whose marginal political, and intellectual fortitude had been precipitously eroded by old age cannot whitewash the abysmal reality of the terror he visited upon the Cuban people for what represents the better part of the 21st century.

To even ask the question of whether Castro was bad for Cuba is vacuous in its own rite, as it is so patently obvious. Young (stupid, ignorant) people often forget the very real realities, or, more accurately, failed to learn the dismal reality of what Castro *actually* did to Cuba. The man was a violent despot who ruled through fear, violence, and death; whose repression of political opposition knew no bounds, even extending to the point where he betrayed one of his few true friends in a fashion worthy of Joseph Stalin (i.e. sending Che to Bolivia); and whose regard for human dignity in any form never was. This does not even begin to do justice to the expanse of horror that Castro's reign visited upon Cuba.

3 things, first, you repeating your same vague point multiple times using different phrases is not convincing. 2nd if you don't like violent marxists what do you care about Che? 3rd, see the the link provided.

I get the sense that you don't read. Do you know how to read?
Tsar of DDO
lannan13
Posts: 23,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:50:06 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/28/2016 10:50:51 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 11/28/2016 3:43:03 PM, Archaholic wrote:
At 11/28/2016 11:09:03 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

when George Galloway owns fox and bbc news xD

That interview was funny.

Well, dictatorship is bad for any country. Nevertheless, in that specific case I think it was good since, as Galloway said, Cuba could have been influenced by the rules of US, and as we know, most of the latin american countries didn't end very well with such a bad influence. Probably Chile was the only country that took advantage of the economic system imposed by the US. Still, I think the dictatorship in Cuba was the best decision Fidel Castro made at that specific moment in which the US wanted to impose a complete and counterproductive american system on the country.

Currently, I don't see any reason to keep the dictatorship. So, as the mummy has just died, this is the opportunity for Fidel's brother to make profound changes in Cuba in order to bring democracy to the island.

What?
Pinochet's economic policies were a disaster
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org...

That was one of the issues with the Chicago Boy's Shock economics. There were some good outcomes, but there are many factors people on the right tend to ignore.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:51:35 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:48:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:47:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 1:01:31 AM, YYW wrote:
Only the lobotomized or the insane could reach the conclusion that Castro was not bad for Cuba.

The question is was he worst than the system of US colonizing that was before him, the answer is yes. http://www.historyofcuba.com...

On the issue of Castro's legacy, the mere fact that in his later years he was little more than a benign corpse in a uniform whose marginal political, and intellectual fortitude had been precipitously eroded by old age cannot whitewash the abysmal reality of the terror he visited upon the Cuban people for what represents the better part of the 21st century.

To even ask the question of whether Castro was bad for Cuba is vacuous in its own rite, as it is so patently obvious. Young (stupid, ignorant) people often forget the very real realities, or, more accurately, failed to learn the dismal reality of what Castro *actually* did to Cuba. The man was a violent despot who ruled through fear, violence, and death; whose repression of political opposition knew no bounds, even extending to the point where he betrayed one of his few true friends in a fashion worthy of Joseph Stalin (i.e. sending Che to Bolivia); and whose regard for human dignity in any form never was. This does not even begin to do justice to the expanse of horror that Castro's reign visited upon Cuba.

3 things, first, you repeating your same vague point multiple times using different phrases is not convincing. 2nd if you don't like violent marxists what do you care about Che? 3rd, see the the link provided.

I get the sense that you don't read. Do you know how to read?

I get the sense you don't care. And judging by your response time, you didn't read.

No one is questioning the atrocities Castro committed. But context is important. If Batista was worse than Castro, and he was, Castro would be a preferable alternative.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:56:52 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:51:35 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:48:56 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:47:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 1:01:31 AM, YYW wrote:
Only the lobotomized or the insane could reach the conclusion that Castro was not bad for Cuba.

The question is was he worst than the system of US colonizing that was before him, the answer is yes. http://www.historyofcuba.com...

On the issue of Castro's legacy, the mere fact that in his later years he was little more than a benign corpse in a uniform whose marginal political, and intellectual fortitude had been precipitously eroded by old age cannot whitewash the abysmal reality of the terror he visited upon the Cuban people for what represents the better part of the 21st century.

To even ask the question of whether Castro was bad for Cuba is vacuous in its own rite, as it is so patently obvious. Young (stupid, ignorant) people often forget the very real realities, or, more accurately, failed to learn the dismal reality of what Castro *actually* did to Cuba. The man was a violent despot who ruled through fear, violence, and death; whose repression of political opposition knew no bounds, even extending to the point where he betrayed one of his few true friends in a fashion worthy of Joseph Stalin (i.e. sending Che to Bolivia); and whose regard for human dignity in any form never was. This does not even begin to do justice to the expanse of horror that Castro's reign visited upon Cuba.

3 things, first, you repeating your same vague point multiple times using different phrases is not convincing. 2nd if you don't like violent marxists what do you care about Che? 3rd, see the the link provided.

I get the sense that you don't read. Do you know how to read?

I get the sense you don't care. And judging by your response time, you didn't read.

No one is questioning the atrocities Castro committed. But context is important. If Batista was worse than Castro, and he was, Castro would be a preferable alternative.

I read your response not your link. Your OP's question is dumb, and I was responding to it. If you want other questions answered, then feel free to ask them.
Tsar of DDO
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 2:59:50 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:56:52 AM, YYW wrote:

I read your response not your link. Your OP's question is dumb, and I was responding to it. If you want other questions answered, then feel free to ask them.

So why then, is it dumb to prefer a less brutal dictator over the more brutal one?

Why is it dumb that Castro rebelled against a regime worse than his own - in the act he gained his country's sovereignty instead of the alternative that sold it at the expense of the Cuban people?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 3:15:25 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 2:41:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:21:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
After overthrowing Batista, Castro had a real chance to transform Cuba into a free market liberal democracy.

When US companies owned much of the means of production that wouldn't have been a revolution.

Instead, he established a communist dictatorship (that almost never works out well for the economy in the end) and then made economic conditions for his people even worse by picking a fight with a Superpower (and not just any old Superpower, but one that was just a few miles away from Cuba), resulting in a half-century long embargo of the island.

No, the US picked the fight with Cuba - the US could have extended the olive branch to apologize for the colonialism. If you know anything about Cuban history the US has been trying to control it since they kicked the Spanish out. The US has a history of overthrowing Latin American governments that were no threat to the US.

If the U.S. didn't intervene, the Cubans would've been left under the rule of the Spaniards. I think even you can admit that would've been worse than American occupation.
Of course, the U.S. could've just left Cuba then and there, so that the country could remain in pre-1898 economic and social conditions, probably leaving behind a massive power vacuum. It'd likely end up like 90% of Africa today, or like Haiti.
Instead, the U.S. invested into the island nation heavily. I hardly see that as something to apologise for.

By the 1950s Cuba "was, socially and economically, a relatively advanced country, certainly by Latin American standards and, in some areas, by world standards."
"Cuba also had an excellent educational system and impressive literacy rates in the 1950's." According to data available for 1950-1953, Cuba had a literary rate of 76%.
"In 1955, life expectancy in Cuba was among the highest at 63 years of age; compared to 52 in other Latin American countries, 43 in Asia, and 37 in Africa."
"The 1960 UN Statistical yearbook ranked pre-Revolutionary Cuba third out of 11 Latin American countries in per capita daily caloric consumption."
"The number of automobiles in Cuba per capita has actually fallen since the 1950's, the only country in the hemisphere for which this is the case."
"Although some would blame Cuba's food problems on the U.S. embargo, the facts suggest that the food shortages are a function of an inefficient collectivized agricultural system -- and a scarcity of foreign exchange resulting from Castro's unwillingness to liberalize Cuba's economy, diversify its export base, and its need to pay off debts owed to its Japanese, European, and Latin American trading partners acquired during the years of abundant Soviet aid. This foreign exchange shortage has severely limited Cuba's ability to purchase readily available food supplies from the U.S., Canada, Latin America, and Europe. The U.S. embargo does not prohibit Cuba from buying food in the U.S."
Source:
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu...

Castro could've built a relatively prosperous Cuba with a solid human rights record. Instead, he let ideology blind him, resulting in the s**thole of a country that we call Cuba today. The only good things that come from Cuba nowadays are cigars and lung cancer vaccines, which is a bit ironic if you think about it.

No, the US embargoed Cuba. Your argument is about politics not economics. You think that just because they were communists they were doomed to fail. You don't take into account history before Castro or current trends that say Cuba has the best education and healthcare in all of Latin America DESPITE the US trying to destroy them.

Of course the U.S. would embargo the island, after the Castro regime stole everything that many American companies had invested in the country. Refusing to do business with a band of thieves isn't unethical by any means.

You pretend Cuba could have just turned into America junior after kicking the US out and fighting against the US since Spain. That is delusional thinking. As the guy in the OP video says, had Castro not been so paranoid of the very real threat of US overthrow he could have focused on more democratic right principles.

Oh yes, Castro would've been a benevolent champion of democracy if it wasn't for those dang American imperialists hur dur.

By the way, do you think a liberal democracy like the US should engage in assassinating leaders and investing in coup d'etats?

The U.S. isn't your typical liberal democracy. It has the job of preserving democracy and human rights around the world, which inevitably involves it getting its hands dirty from time to time. If no country was willing to do this, our world would be a considerably worse place today.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 3:16:12 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Eh, Latino culture just sucksass under either communism or capitalism. You just can't point to any shining civilizations south of Texas.

The bar is already set so low, even Castro would be good for them.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 4:19:38 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 3:15:25 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:41:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:21:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
After overthrowing Batista, Castro had a real chance to transform Cuba into a free market liberal democracy.

When US companies owned much of the means of production that wouldn't have been a revolution.

Instead, he established a communist dictatorship (that almost never works out well for the economy in the end) and then made economic conditions for his people even worse by picking a fight with a Superpower (and not just any old Superpower, but one that was just a few miles away from Cuba), resulting in a half-century long embargo of the island.

No, the US picked the fight with Cuba - the US could have extended the olive branch to apologize for the colonialism. If you know anything about Cuban history the US has been trying to control it since they kicked the Spanish out. The US has a history of overthrowing Latin American governments that were no threat to the US.

If the U.S. didn't intervene, the Cubans would've been left under the rule of the Spaniards. I think even you can admit that would've been worse than American occupation.

That's debatable. Simon Bolivar liberated most of SA on his own. The Spanish Empire was falling apart, the Cuban rebels would have eventually won.

Of course, the U.S. could've just left Cuba then and there, so that the country could remain in pre-1898 economic and social conditions, probably leaving behind a massive power vacuum. It'd likely end up like 90% of Africa today, or like Haiti.

The US could have treated Cuba like a respectable ally and helped establish a democracy and traded fairly with local Cubans for resources. But no, the supported Batista who in tun supported American business interests by creating a vacation spot for rich Americans and mafia gangsters.

Instead, the U.S. invested into the island nation heavily. I hardly see that as something to apologise for.

That investment wasn't altruistic, it was for the control of Cuban resources. "At the beginning of 1959 U.S. companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands - almost all the cattle ranches - 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions - 80 percent of the utilities - and practically all the oil industry - and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

By the 1950s Cuba "was, socially and economically, a relatively advanced country, certainly by Latin American standards and, in some areas, by world standards."

Yes, being the Las Vegas of Latin America sure was good for the economy. What's not mentioned is that wealth went to Americans and the rich who supported the Batista regime.

"Cuba also had an excellent educational system and impressive literacy rates in the 1950's." According to data available for 1950-1953, Cuba had a literary rate of 76%.

"By 1962, the country"s literacy rate was 96%, one of the highest in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org...

"In 1955, life expectancy in Cuba was among the highest at 63 years of age; compared to 52 in other Latin American countries, 43 in Asia, and 37 in Africa."

Today Cuban life expectancy is on par with the US. US is one rank above it. https://en.wikipedia.org...

"The 1960 UN Statistical yearbook ranked pre-Revolutionary Cuba third out of 11 Latin American countries in per capita daily caloric consumption."

2006-08 Cuban's consume the highest average amount of calories of Latin America. https://en.wikipedia.org...

"The number of automobiles in Cuba per capita has actually fallen since the 1950's, the only country in the hemisphere for which this is the case."

Yea, thanks embargo. But hey at least they have the most working car from the 1950s in the world.

"Although some would blame Cuba's food problems on the U.S. embargo, the facts suggest that the food shortages are a function of an inefficient collectivized agricultural system -- and a scarcity of foreign exchange resulting from Castro's unwillingness to liberalize Cuba's economy, diversify its export base, and its need to pay off debts owed to its Japanese, European, and Latin American trading partners acquired during the years of abundant Soviet aid. This foreign exchange shortage has severely limited Cuba's ability to purchase readily available food supplies from the U.S., Canada, Latin America, and Europe. The U.S. embargo does not prohibit Cuba from buying food in the U.S."

Alright you got me there.

Source:
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu...

Castro could've built a relatively prosperous Cuba with a solid human rights record. Instead, he let ideology blind him, resulting in the s**thole of a country that we call Cuba today. The only good things that come from Cuba nowadays are cigars and lung cancer vaccines, which is a bit ironic if you think about it.

No, the US embargoed Cuba. Your argument is about politics not economics. You think that just because they were communists they were doomed to fail. You don't take into account history before Castro or current trends that say Cuba has the best education and healthcare in all of Latin America DESPITE the US trying to destroy them.

Of course the U.S. would embargo the island, after the Castro regime stole everything that many American companies had invested in the country. Refusing to do business with a band of thieves isn't unethical by any means.

Did the US steal America when it rebelled against Britain? So heavy did the King invest in those traitorous colonies. If you want to talk about theives you should refer to those who controlled Cuban land by bribing the corrupt Batista regime.

You pretend Cuba could have just turned into America junior after kicking the US out and fighting against the US since Spain. That is delusional thinking. As the guy in the OP video says, had Castro not been so paranoid of the very real threat of US overthrow he could have focused on more democratic right principles.

Oh yes, Castro would've been a benevolent champion of democracy if it wasn't for those dang American imperialists hur dur.

600+ assassination attempts can do that to a person.

By the way, do you think a liberal democracy like the US should engage in assassinating leaders and investing in coup d'etats?

The U.S. isn't your typical liberal democracy. It has the job of preserving democracy and human rights around the world, which inevitably involves it getting its hands dirty from time to time. If no country was willing to do this, our world would be a considerably worse place today.

Is that how you excuse it? American exceptionalism justifies our over throwing of usually democratic regimes putting in place brutal dictators? This wasn't just a 'time to time' activity, it was habitual and often.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 5:48:18 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/29/2016 4:19:38 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 3:15:25 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:41:45 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/29/2016 2:21:52 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
After overthrowing Batista, Castro had a real chance to transform Cuba into a free market liberal democracy.

When US companies owned much of the means of production that wouldn't have been a revolution.

Instead, he established a communist dictatorship (that almost never works out well for the economy in the end) and then made economic conditions for his people even worse by picking a fight with a Superpower (and not just any old Superpower, but one that was just a few miles away from Cuba), resulting in a half-century long embargo of the island.





The US could have treated Cuba like a respectable ally and helped establish a democracy and traded fairly with local Cubans for resources. But no, the supported Batista who in tun supported American business interests by creating a vacation spot for rich Americans and mafia gangsters.

Batista was opposed to Communism; had the communists taken power in Cuba, the U.S. would have to contend with a Soviet-aligned country on its doorstep. It could've potentially been used as a launchpad for a communist invasion along the Gulf. It had little to do with Cuba being a vacation spot for the mafia.

Instead, the U.S. invested into the island nation heavily. I hardly see that as something to apologise for.

That investment wasn't altruistic, it was for the control of Cuban resources. "At the beginning of 1959 U.S. companies owned about 40 percent of the Cuban sugar lands - almost all the cattle ranches - 90 percent of the mines and mineral concessions - 80 percent of the utilities - and practically all the oil industry - and supplied two-thirds of Cuba's imports." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

By the 1950s Cuba "was, socially and economically, a relatively advanced country, certainly by Latin American standards and, in some areas, by world standards."

Yes, being the Las Vegas of Latin America sure was good for the economy. What's not mentioned is that wealth went to Americans and the rich who supported the Batista regime.

No, a lot of that wealth did indeed trickle down to the average Cuban. According to one source, only about a third of Cubans lived in poverty in the 1950s. The source from earlier also addresses TV ownership per capita during that time; no matter how rich you were, you weren't usually gonna have more than one TV (unless you're the Shredder), so it likely reflected a reality where many normal Cubans owned TV sets.
As for Cuba's present level of wealth, you neglect to take into account how much of that is in the hands of Cuba's upper class of communist party loyalists.

"Cuba also had an excellent educational system and impressive literacy rates in the 1950's." According to data available for 1950-1953, Cuba had a literary rate of 76%.

"By 1962, the country"s literacy rate was 96%, one of the highest in the world" https://en.wikipedia.org...

"In 1955, life expectancy in Cuba was among the highest at 63 years of age; compared to 52 in other Latin American countries, 43 in Asia, and 37 in Africa."

Today Cuban life expectancy is on par with the US. US is one rank above it. https://en.wikipedia.org...

"The 1960 UN Statistical yearbook ranked pre-Revolutionary Cuba third out of 11 Latin American countries in per capita daily caloric consumption."

2006-08 Cuban's consume the highest average amount of calories of Latin America. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Your source shows a 700-calorie per capita increase since the days of the Cuban Revolution.

"The number of automobiles in Cuba per capita has actually fallen since the 1950's, the only country in the hemisphere for which this is the case."

Yea, thanks embargo. But hey at least they have the most working car from the 1950s in the world.

Blaming all of Cuba's economic problems on the embargo is just silly. The embargo only applies to Americans; people and companies of other countries are free to trade with Cuba, and the country was heavily subsidised by the Soviets until the early 1990s.
While in many areas Cuba has improved since then (as almost all countries have), I think we can both agree that 1950s Cuba was prosperous enough (and no less free than it is now) so as to not warrant a bloody revolution.

"Although some would blame Cuba's food problems on the U.S. embargo, the facts suggest

Alright you got me there.

Source:
http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu...

Castro could've built a relatively prosperous Cuba with a solid human rights record. Instead, he let ideology blind him, resulting in the s**thole of a country that we call Cuba today. The only good things that come from Cuba nowadays are cigars and lung cancer vaccines, which is a bit ironic if you think about it.

No, the US embargoed Cuba. Your argument is about politics not economics. You think that just because they were communists they were doomed to fail. You don't take into account history before Castro or current trends that say Cuba has the best education and healthcare in all of Latin America DESPITE the US trying to destroy them.

Of course the U.S. would embargo the island, after the Castro regime stole everything that many American companies had invested in the country. Refusing to do business with a band of thieves isn't unethical by any means.

Did the US steal America when it rebelled against Britain? So heavy did the King invest in those traitorous colonies. If you want to talk about theives you should refer to those who controlled Cuban land by bribing the corrupt Batista regime.

I'm pretty sure America didn't seize all British-owned industries without compensation.

You pretend Cuba could have just turned into America junior after kicking the US out and fighting against the US since Spain. That is delusional thinking. As the guy in the OP video says, had Castro not been so paranoid of the very real threat of US overthrow he could have focused on more democratic right principles.

Oh yes, Castro would've been a benevolent champion of democracy if it wasn't for those dang American imperialists hur dur.

600+ assassination attempts can do that to a person.

By the way, do you think a liberal democracy like the US should engage in assassinating leaders and investing in coup d'etats?

The U.S. isn't your typical liberal democracy. It has the job of preserving democracy and human rights around the world, which inevitably involves it getting its hands dirty from time to time. If no country was willing to do this, our world would be a considerably worse place today.

Is that how you excuse it? American exceptionalism justifies our over throwing of usually democratic regimes putting in place brutal dictators? This wasn't just a 'time to time' activity, it was habitual and often.

You appear to be totally incapable of seeing the bigger picture. I suppose the U.S. shouldn't have supported the South during the Korean War since at the time South Korea was led by a dictator. Or how about Taiwan, which was a single-party state (and military dictatorship) until 1987? Or anti-communist Pinochet, who was ousted in 1990? Had Batista stayed in power, Cuba likely would've seen a restoration of democracy within two or three decades (the 90s at the latest), whereas Casto's regime remains in power in 2016. In the long term, just about all the countries who were once under US-backed anti-communist strongmen are prosperous democracies tod
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 5:10:11 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
Yes. He was bad.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born