#trudeaueulogies

[Dwalin2010]

Cuba specific ideology aside. Communism cannot exist in international commerce. For trade between nations, some degree of capitalism has to take place. Unless a single nations managed to take over the world, there is no single government that would be able to enforce communist distribution to its people. With capitalism, since all trade is voluntary, you don't need an overreaching government to impose international commerce.

I agree, but here it was business with gangsters, not legal international companies. And the ones caught in Cuba after the revolution didn't become Castro's loyalists, they were just kicked out. Since he was brutal with the political opposition, why being merciful with gangsters? If Pablo Escobar and the Colombian cartels helped him to make money later, that would be an explanation, since none of the 2 sides during the Cold War had scruples about the sources of income, as long as it helped to harm the other side. But the ones briefly imprisoned following the revolution, they were mostly Cosa Nostra, they were anti-Castro and, according to some historians. were even used by the CIA in a later abandoned plot aimed to kill Castro. So why didn't he just kill them when he could, considering that he had no scruples with killing political oppostion? That's what I don't get.....

Edited November 27, 2016 by Dwalin2010

[Alertcircuit]

I thought Obama's statement was perfect. It was nuanced, and keeps diplomatic opportunity with Cuba open.

Not sure what Trudeau and Trump were trying to accomplish with theirs.

[tuvarkz]

I thought Obama's statement was perfect. It was nuanced, and keeps diplomatic opportunity with Cuba open.

Not sure what Trudeau and Trump were trying to accomplish with theirs.

Trudeau was sucking up to Cuba and his likely idealization of Marxism; as well as providing fuel to a new conspiracy theory that he's Fidel's son.

Trump spoke truth and what any coherent western liberal should have said regarding a dictator's death.

[Life]

well, it's not like i don't take issue with him. but i just don't think it's entirely fair to paint him a villain. similarly, i don't think it's entirely fair to paint gandhi a hero.

point is, i'd like to see more subtlety in people's answers. ("no moral similarities to us presidents. none," from life for example, is unfair)

There are no moral similarities.

​Name me a single US President who had political opponents jailed and shot.

​My favourite is that people who want to go after Pence for his position on electro-shock therapy for gays are ignoring Castro's abuses against the gay community because Castro viewed homosexuality as a consequence of capitalism and gays needed to be re-educated through labour camps.

​But if Castro wasn't a villain, then I guess Stalin was a pretty decent dude too. He reinvigorated the Soviet work force!

[Papa Wolf]

Any dictator can look good if you cherry-pick only their good aspects.

In spite of accusations of poor governance, Caligula was a firm believer in the concept of brotherly love. #trudeaueulogies

​Name me a single US President who had political opponents jailed and shot.

Andrew Jackson is the closest I can think of, his enemy being the entire Native Population in America.

[Naughx]

You could probably cherry pick "good" things about Pol Pot or the North Korean's Kim family.

[Life]

Today we say goodbye to Ghengis Khan, the former Mongolian leader best known for opening new trade routes to China.

I can keep doing this all day because Trudeau deserves to be called out for the ridiculous statement he made.

[UNLEASH IT]

Maybe he did it because marxism is the new in thing right now. I hear my lecturers talk marxism all the time at uni. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I wish they would talk about other ideologies too.

[blah the Prussian]

well, it's not like i don't take issue with him. but i just don't think it's entirely fair to paint him a villain. similarly, i don't think it's entirely fair to paint gandhi a hero.

point is, i'd like to see more subtlety in people's answers. ("no moral similarities to us presidents. none," from life for example, is unfair)

stop being condescending. it's not simple. also, that thread was only about whether or not he's a war criminal, which entirely depends on arbitrary metrics.

So care to justify it then? Especially since you didn't?

[Yojinbo]

​Name me a single US President who had political opponents jailed and shot.

Name me the amount of innocent civilians that good dronebombed by El Presidente.

He was a dictator, and I have nothing good to say about him - I don't understand the apologists. But it's hard to hold him in a worse light than just about every major western prime minister or president, especially US president. Every single one of them since I don't know when is responsible for at least 5-digit numbers of deaths, the overwhelming majority of which are, of course, civilians. So yeah, I don't understand Trudeau's point either but it's even less understandable why you single him out for it.

[Etrurian emperor]

my buddy who just took a class on this has found that castro (and guevara) receives too much criticism. at least pre-revolution castro. i can't say i hold castro in a much worse light than i do andrew jackson or harry truman.

Truman? I'll admit my American history isn't as good as I'd like but I thought Truman was generally considered an ''upper tier'' president. No Rooseveld but a good man for the job. I think I read he ranks pretty high on presidential lists.

I don't really have a problem with national leaders paying respect to controversial peers. They represent the nations and if they go cheering because foreign leaders are dead then the relation is going to get worse, not better.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Etrurian emperor

[Res]

I can see there are so much hate from the Canada and US, what's about other countries citizens?

Do you hate him so?

From here we see him as a hero, it's CIA's fault to fail to assassinate him more than hundred times.

I found this article, in praise of Castro, very interesting for a view into why people do love him. I hadn't really been aware before of the African connection.

Castro is a complicated figure. I don't love him, but I also think the American hatred of him goes too far; if he hadn't thumbed his nose at America, few people in the US would care (how many Central American dictators of that era can you name?) He was a dictator and I have no love for those, but he did have some positive effects on Cuba (such as health care) and was an improvement over the awful Batista regime. There is definitely good and bad in there.

I think Amnesty International's take is pretty good, and they care a lot more about human rights than the right-wing partisans quoted in the article: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/11/fidel-castro-s-human-rights-legacy-a-tale-of-two-worlds/

What's funny is that Nero is also problematic but not as bad as he is sometimes made out to be (in Nero's case, the Christian attribution that he started the Great Fire of Rome is almost certainly false).

I agree with all of this, and like Amnesty International's take. It's also what I've heard from people who've spent some time in Cuba - and that people view it as 'Cuba's not great, but everywhere else is worse.'

[tuvarkz]

Name me the amount of innocent civilians that good dronebombed by El Presidente.

He was a dictator, and I have nothing good to say about him - I don't understand the apologists. But it's hard to hold him in a worse light than just about every major western prime minister or president, especially US president. Every single one of them since I don't know when is responsible for at least 5-digit numbers of deaths, the overwhelming majority of which are, of course, civilians. So yeah, I don't understand Trudeau's point either but it's even less understandable why you single him out for it.

Fundamental difference-the dronebomb targets, although still a crime, are not US citizens. Castro made life hell for quite a considerable number of Cuban citizens.

[Tolvir]

Just a fun fact about Castro that I think a few will enjoy here.

His estimated kill count is around 100,000. His known least amount killed is 10,000. 5,300 of them were peasant farmers and their children that tried to fight his rule in the Escambay Mountains.

Castro, whether you want to say it or not, was a dictator. He was not a good person by any means. Sure he gave free healthcare, I guess those free bullets from the firing squad counts too right? Stop painting him like some honorable human being, because he should go down as an evil man that held a nation with an iron fist for decades.

There is a reason so many people flee Cuba.

What's next, we going to talk about how great Mao Zedong was? Clearly he had the people in mind with those 45 million deaths in 4 years right?

Edited November 28, 2016 by Tolvir

[Phoenix Wright]

Castro was a villain according to every person I've met who dealt first-hand with life in Cuba under him. He may not be Stalin-level evil, but he was a bad man.

Gandhi wasn't perfect, but uttering his name in the same breath as Castro is a bit disingenuous.

that's not the point. the point is i don't like that we consistently lack subtlety.

There is one question, would be interesting to hear your opinions:

When Castro came to power and the organized crime syndicates active under Battista lost their "strongholds" in Cuba, why didn't he put away for life or shoot the ones he managed to catch?

He even had Santo Trafficante in jail, yet chose to release him, while he could have changed the mafia history instead. I thought, mob bosses weren't considered as a "socially friendly element" by the Communists? On the other hand, if they really did business with Pablo Escobar, it's said especially Raul Castro was involved in drug trafficking....I don't know. But in this case, they weren't "Communists by ideology", but just pretended to be that. A Communist leader letting go or even doing business with financial tycoons (criminal ones in this case), makes as much sense as an African American becoming a Ku Klux Klan leader, or a Nazi concentration camp executioner being of Jewish origins, imo.

What did he exactly hope to accomplish by sending the crime bosses abroad free? That they would return to the USA and disrupt its economy?

my best guess is that he didn't want to go to war with drug traffickers. escobar did quite a number on civilians and the government alike.

Today we say goodbye to Ghengis Khan, the former Mongolian leader best known for opening new trade routes to China.

I can keep doing this all day because Trudeau deserves to be called out for the ridiculous statement he made.

genghis khan also isn't 100% evil. way to lack subtlety yet again.

So care to justify it then? Especially since you didn't?

we could go the route of dropping nukes if you'd like. and then him wanting to do it again.

Truman? I'll admit my American history isn't as good as I'd like but I thought Truman was generally considered an ''upper tier'' president. No Rooseveld but a good man for the job. I think I read he ranks pretty high on presidential lists.

I don't really have a problem with national leaders paying respect to controversial peers. They represent the nations and if they go cheering because foreign leaders are dead then the relation is going to get worse, not better.

so's reagan, but he was mostly shitty.

Fundamental difference-the dronebomb targets, although still a crime, are not US citizens. Castro made life hell for quite a considerable number of Cuban citizens.

why, precisely, does this matter? whether a person kills his own family or another's doesn't really matter to me. it still makes that person a monster, depending on circumstances.

Just a fun fact about Castro that I think a few will enjoy here.

His estimated kill count is around 100,000. His known least amount killed is 10,000. 5,300 of them were peasant farmers and their children that tried to fight his rule in the Escambay Mountains.

Castro, whether you want to say it or not, was a dictator. He was not a good person by any means. Sure he gave free healthcare, I guess those free bullets from the firing squad counts too right? Stop painting him like some honorable human being, because he should go down as an evil man that held a nation with an iron fist for decades.

There is a reason so many people flee Cuba.

What's next, we going to talk about how great Mao Zedong was? Clearly he had the people in mind with those 45 million deaths in 4 years right?

estimated is a strong word. it's more than likely false.

are you aware how much larger 45m is to 10k? comparatively, castro didn't help kill anyone.

[eclipse]

well, it's not like i don't take issue with him. but i just don't think it's entirely fair to paint him a villain. similarly, i don't think it's entirely fair to paint gandhi a hero.

Why? At least on the first one, since it's actually relevant to the topic.

stop being condescending. it's not simple. also, that thread was only about whether or not he's a war criminal, which entirely depends on arbitrary metrics.

Please point out where in the thread this is true. According to the first post, it looks like this thread is about Trudeau's stance on Castro.

[blah the Prussian]

we could go the route of dropping nukes if you'd like. and then him wanting to do it again.

If this is off topic, Eclipse, let me know and I'll stop.

Right then. Truman bombed Nagasaki because the Japanese weren't responding, and it was entirely reasonable to assume that they were just stalling trying to buy time to prepare a defense. Yes, they weren't, but Truman didn't know that. Nagasaki was justified based on what he knew at the time.

[Phoenix Wright]

Why? At least on the first one, since it's actually relevant to the topic.

Please point out where in the thread this is true. According to the first post, it looks like this thread is about Trudeau's stance on Castro.

castro revolutionized medicine, education (he basically made cuba literate), and other social policies that cuba desperately needed. his pre-revolution actions are very worth reading into and mostly why myself (and my friend) can sympathize with castro (but absolutely not support him). castro throwing freedom of speech to the wind and murdering his political opponents was seen as necessary to him, as his revolution couldn't have happened otherwise. the united states put far too much pressure on the cuban state. the united states really was a huge asshole to the rest of the world in a lot of ways (especially latin america and asia) in the cold war.

his post was alluding to a different thread.

If this is off topic, Eclipse, let me know and I'll stop.

Right then. Truman bombed Nagasaki because the Japanese weren't responding, and it was entirely reasonable to assume that they were just stalling trying to buy time to prepare a defense. Yes, they weren't, but Truman didn't know that. Nagasaki was justified based on what he knew at the time.

so in your view the bombs were 100% military strategy?

Edited November 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

If this is off topic, Eclipse, let me know and I'll stop.

Right then. Truman bombed Nagasaki because the Japanese weren't responding, and it was entirely reasonable to assume that they were just stalling trying to buy time to prepare a defense. Yes, they weren't, but Truman didn't know that. Nagasaki was justified based on what he knew at the time.

Yeah. . .dick-measuring contests (in this case, who the bigger dick is) is starting to veer off-topic.

castro revolutionized medicine, education (he basically made cuba literate), and other social policies that cuba desperately needed. his pre-revolution actions are very worth reading into and mostly why myself (and my friend) can sympathize with castro (but absolutely not support him). castro throwing freedom of speech to the wind and murdering his political opponents was seen as necessary to him, as his revolution couldn't have happened otherwise. the united states put far too much pressure on the cuban state. the united states really was a huge asshole to the rest of the world in a lot of ways (especially latin america and asia) in the cold war.

IMO, human rights violations are human rights violations, full stop. In this case, Castro's ends don't justify the means.

Edited November 28, 2016 by eggclipse

[Phoenix Wright]

find me a relevant world leader that doesn't violate 'human rights' in some way, though. it is impossible. it is one of the many curses of being head of state.

[Tetragrammaton]

I think the most important reason US hate Castro so much is that they failed to overthrow him.

[eclipse]

find me a relevant world leader that doesn't violate 'human rights' in some way, though. it is impossible. it is one of the many curses of being head of state.

You're right that it would be impossible, whether it be in the past or present. However, I have no qualms about disliking Castro because of what he did. Imagine how much it would suck if you had to censor yourself, on pain of death.

[blah the Prussian]

find me a relevant world leader that doesn't violate 'human rights' in some way, though. it is impossible. it is one of the many curses of being head of state.

I can probably do that after some searching, but there sure as hell are world leaders that violate human rights less than Castro. Some human rights are actually important, some aren't. Freedom of movement, which all world leaders violate because you can't go to Syria? Unimportant. Freedom of thought? Less so.

[Crysta]

did pedro II do anything terrible? outside of, like, war?

[blah the Prussian]

did pedro II do anything terrible? outside of, like, war?

Pedro II was a pretty great leader, but he did have several early rebellions against him, and his troops PROBABLY committed some war crime. That isn't necessarily his fault, though.