Closed thread on Castro

[Howjy04]

Do I have to give examples of right wing politicians who have done the same. Some from our own shores. And right wing governments who have supported dictatorships. Perhaps you dont find that unusual though?

 

Communism has been the cancer of the world for over 100 years.Castro can roast in hell along with Lenin,Stalin,Mao etc.How many communist countries are now left?Probably you can count them on the fingers of one hand.Castro and his cronies were murderers and couldn't feed the people they supposed to have loved.Leaders of social justice they weren't ,brutal scum they were.Hitler was a facist ****.Just to add a bit of balance.

[Bea Smith]

Does anyone find it unusual that left wing politicians continually revere mass murders

 

Yes, you and Bookworm. I'd really expect a bit better post from you Howjy, no doubt you are going to go on from bumhole to breakfast time about Stalin, who was actually not left-wing in any way and not revered by any left wingers. Was Hitler left wing? Nixon, one million Vietnamese civilians murdered- very left wing. No, thought not.

[Howjy04]

Yes, you and Bookworm. I'd really expect a bit better post from you Howjy, no doubt you are going to go on from bumhole to breakfast time about Stalin, who was actually not left-wing in any way and not revered by any left wingers. Was Hitler left wing? Nixon, one million Vietnamese civilians murdered- very left wing. No, thought not.

Please see the post before yours Bea.

[Bea Smith]

Communism has been the cancer of the world for over 100 years.Castro can roast in hell along with Lenin,Stalin,Mao etc.How many communist countries are now left?Probably you can count them on the fingers of one hand.Castro and his cronies were murderers and couldn't feed the people they supposed to have loved.Leaders of social justice they weren't ,brutal scum they were.Hitler was a facist ****.Just to add a bit of balance.

 

 

That post really reads like a 6-year-old's essay at a Trump supporting school in South Carolina. If you make offensive comments about people roasting in hell, don't complain when I and others come back and say the same about Thatcher and Reagan and the like.

Castro's Cuba only had shortages because of US embargos and hatred, but still managed a health service better than the US and helped out many poor countries whilst the US stood by and watched people die.

I would guess Thatcher was responsible for more deaths than Castro, certainly Reagan, Bush, Blair & co were.

[Howjy04]

That post really reads like a 6-year-old's essay at a Trump supporting school in South Carolina. If you make offensive comments about people roasting in hell, don't complain when I and others come back and say the same about Thatcher and Reagan and the like.

Castro's Cuba only had shortages because of US embargos and hatred, but still managed a health service better than the US and helped out many poor countries whilst the US stood by and watched people die.

I would guess Thatcher was responsible for more deaths than Castro, certainly Reagan, Bush, Blair & co were.

Helping poor countries with genocide and a selective health service,queues for food,murdering fellow Cubans through executions,poverty and starvation.

The Soviet Union didn't seem eager to help, only with missiles.The only bad thing about Castro dying is his barbaric brother is now in charge.I haven't seen any Che the Cabana Butcher t- shirts lately.Another hero?

[Andyregs]

Communism has been the cancer of the world for over 100 years.Castro can roast in hell along with Lenin,Stalin,Mao etc.How many communist countries are now left?Probably you can count them on the fingers of one hand.Castro and his cronies were murderers and couldn't feed the people they supposed to have loved.Leaders of social justice they weren't ,brutal scum they were.Hitler was a facist ****.Just to add a bit of balance.

 

Firstly im not sure what youre trying to argue with me about. I asked if you needed me to give right wing examples of dictators that were revered. If this was your answer, im not sure if its a yes or no?

Lastly, I havent once spoken positively of castro. Being better than something else doesnt make it good. In the same way its pointless thinking positively of saddam hussain because he was a few degree less evil than ISIS. TO be honest, I dont know enough about him, the things he did or the system of government in cuba to make a proper comment. However, i will add that left wing can cover everything from communism, socialism, social democrats, labour movements, and state capitalism. It would be crazy to think of them as the same just as it would be crazy to lump the KKK and conservative party together.

[Bea Smith]

Helping poor countries with genocide and a selective health service,queues for food,murdering fellow Cubans through executions,poverty and starvation.

The Soviet Union didn't seem eager to help, only with missiles.The only bad thing about Castro dying is his barbaric brother is now in charge.I haven't seen any Che the Cabana Butcher t- shirts lately.Another hero?

 

 

Plain silly, I wont bite further. Not even Trump has accused Castro of genocide, and murdering fellow Cubans - only guilty criminals as in the US. I know you are getting a bit desperate and clutching at straws now but try and lay off the wine gums, it'll make your posts seem less like those that claim Obama is a cross between a Martian and an alien.

[Robbie Earle's Perm]

Some certainly have bigger beaks than others.

 

No way to speak about Nasser Hussain!

[Jacko51]

What if the free press exploits their freedom in a way that is not good for the people but is good for a minority including those that 'own' the free press? A controlled press is the only press that could be used solely for the good of the people...the 'govt' if it gets it right completely in terms of what is right could ensure that the press supports that and indeed is part of it to ensure that what is right is not disrupted by the press/media...a free press could be in conflict with what is right cos that isn't good for the minority that the 'owners' belong to.

 

Of course no govt has ever got it so right that they don 't do things that are not good and it's a free press that will expose them hence they don't want a free press.

 

A free press by its very nature means that all shades of opinion can be expressed, not just those of megalomaniac Aussies.

[Jacko51]

Plain silly, I wont bite further. Not even Trump has accused Castro of genocide, and murdering fellow Cubans - only guilty criminals as in the US.

 

It is a fact, Bea, that Castro executed a considerable number of his own people. You say they were guilty criminals but if Castro made the laws then anyone who opposed him was a "guilty criminal"?? As I said in my first post on the original thread, there was good and bad in the Castro regime and holding him up as some sort of saint is simply wrong in my opinion. Praise him for the good he did but accept also that there were aspects of a rule which we would no accept in our country - however poor a democracy it is.

[Essex Vale]

All political leaders will be subject to complaints and critical comment from those with different points of view, I am quite comfortable with that concept. Previous posts here are testament to the myriad of different points of view.

 

The only real argument that "trumps" (no pun intended) all complaints is the ability for the people to democratically vote for their government.

 

It is a fact that Fidel Castro ruled a single party state for 47 years and he was then succeeded by one sole candidate, his brother, who is still there. He was not elected to his role, he has never been democratically or lawfully elected to do anything.

 

For that reason and that reason alone he does not deserve praise by anyone. I accept that he provided good healthcare and some other benefits, but it remains a fact that he is a dictator who stole power from his people and has denied his people the right of free democratic citizens of the world.

 

His rule had no legitimacy. All the comments made about Reagan, Thatcher, Blair et al miss one important point, the citizens of that country elected them to office, in the case of the three named, more than once.

 

I struggle to see how anyone can continue to support dictators, even those perceived to be benevolent rather than malignant. A dictator denies that basic fundamental right of the human race to elect its leaders.

[davidatpreston]

But right wingers are supposed to be "nasty" and ruthless aren't they so you'd not be surprised whereas left wingers are supposed to be nice and caring or at least that's how they position/present themselves...garbage in so many cases.

 

Personally the means matter just as much and politicians of all persuasions will try to persuade us that what they are doing (means) is right cos of the ultimate goal...whether it be Blair, Castro, Bush to name but a few.

 

 

 

I thought in previous posts you and others had purveyed right-wingers as libertarian and freedom-loving, givers of equal opportunity and creators of increased wealth and happiness for all. How wrong I must have been.

[Fosse69]

All political leaders will be subject to complaints and critical comment from those with different points of view, I am quite comfortable with that concept. Previous posts here are testament to the myriad of different points of view.

 

The only real argument that "trumps" (no pun intended) all complaints is the ability for the people to democratically vote for their government.

 

It is a fact that Fidel Castro ruled a single party state for 47 years and he was then succeeded by one sole candidate, his brother, who is still there. He was not elected to his role, he has never been democratically or lawfully elected to do anything.

 

For that reason and that reason alone he does not deserve praise by anyone. I accept that he provided good healthcare and some other benefits, but it remains a fact that he is a dictator who stole power from his people and has denied his people the right of free democratic citizens of the world.

 

His rule had no legitimacy. All the comments made about Reagan, Thatcher, Blair et al miss one important point, the citizens of that country elected them to office, in the case of the three named, more than once.

 

I struggle to see how anyone can continue to support dictators, even those perceived to be benevolent rather than malignant. A dictator denies that basic fundamental right of the human race to elect its leaders.

It could be argued that his rule did have legitimacy, he was the leader of the people who overthrew the government of the time, direct democracy? Just as valid as governments elected by unfair voting systems. Not that I am arguing for revolutions, but the sort of thing that happens when things become unbalanced, and best followed by elections when things have settled down.

[Essex Vale]

It could be argued that his rule did have legitimacy, he was the leader of the people who overthrew the government of the time, direct democracy? Just as valid as governments elected by unfair voting systems. Not that I am arguing for revolutions, but the sort of thing that happens when things become unbalanced, and best followed by elections when things have settled down.

 

Yes that point could be argued but to go 57 years with no valid democratic choice gives zero support to that argument's validity

[Fosse69]

Yes that point could be argued but to go 57 years with no valid democratic choice gives zero support to that argument's validity

His initial rule was valid, ideally after 4/5 years elections should have been held, the same could be said of Spain`s 40 years. Perhaps Cuba was too close to the USA for comfort?