Closed thread on Castro

[Essex Vale]

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?

 

In this thread whenever I make a point that is valid and debunks the castro myth a totally different argument is pulled out? What has Spain got to do with this? Castro was a malevolent dictator who suppressed his people by denying them democracy. Other point about other people and countries may be valid but that is not the point in this thread. No one has produced a single valid piece of evidence to disprove my assertion that Castro was anti democratic. There is little point in debating an issue with individuals who have minds closed to the truth and seek to confuse with irrelevant obfuscation.

[Fosse69]

In this thread whenever I make a point that is valid and debunks the castro myth a totally different argument is pulled out? What has Spain got to do with this? Castro was a malevolent dictator who suppressed his people by denying them democracy. Other point about other people and countries may be valid but that is not the point in this thread. No one has produced a single valid piece of evidence to disprove my assertion that Castro was anti democratic. There is little point in debating an issue with individuals who have minds closed to the truth and seek to confuse with irrelevant obfuscation.

I was not aware that anyone was saying that Castro was not a dictator, which by definition is not democratic. Whether he was good or bad in some or all aspects is a matter of opinion.

[George]

 

A dictator denies that basic fundamental right of the human race to elect its leaders.

 

Where do you get that theory from that it is out basic human right to elect our leaders?

 

For millennia people were ruled by their gods. They didn't chose them. We still have a monarchy. We didn't chose that.

It's nice to be able to chose your own leader (although often it is an illusion of choice) but a fundamental right? I don't think so.

[Essex Vale]

Where do you get that theory from that it is out basic human right to elect our leaders?

 

For millennia people were ruled by their gods. They didn't chose them. We still have a monarchy. We didn't chose that.

It's nice to be able to chose your own leader (although often it is an illusion of choice) but a fundamental right? I don't think so.

 

So let's see how many people in the world share your view of it.

[Jacko51]

Where do you get that theory from that it is out basic human right to elect our leaders?

 

For millennia people were ruled by their gods. They didn't chose them. We still have a monarchy. We didn't chose that.

 

Strictly speaking, we did. The monarchy was overthrown in 1649 but the people wanted it back, hence its return in 1660. We even chose who we wanted to be king in 1689 when William of Orange was invited to take over the English throne at the expense of the Catholic James who clearly had a stronger claim.

[George]

So let's see how many people in the world share your view of it.

 

Not really relevant. I was just wondering where you got the belief from it was a fundamental human right, that's all.

 

I would consider fundamental rights to be along the lines of; not to be tortured, the right to a fair trial etc. Nothing to do with being able to chose my own leader. Now I'm sure you can point to example when the rights I've mentioned have been breached under a dictatorship but I can also point to multiple examples under 'democratic ' society.

 

The moral of the story is, the people in charge can just as easily be arseholes whether you've chosen them yourself or not.

[George]

Strictly speaking, we did. The monarchy was overthrown in 1649 but the people wanted it back, hence its return in 1660. We even chose who we wanted to be king in 1689 when William of Orange was invited to take over the English throne at the expense of the Catholic James who clearly had a stronger claim.

 

Teach 1, George 0.

[Jacko51]

Teach 1, George 0.

 

Write out 100 times "I must not make up history to support a spurious argument."

[Aussie Rules]

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.

 

I know I read it somewhere that post Batista Mr Castro promised Cubans a democratic voice. Problem was he adopted the version of 'Democracy is in the Executive' where he controlled the 'Executive', but as you allude Fosse 'gerrymander of democracy' comes in all forms.

[Fosse69]

I know I read it somewhere that post Batista Mr Castro promised Cubans a democratic voice. Problem was he adopted the version of 'Democracy is in the Executive' where he controlled the 'Executive', but as you allude Fosse 'gerrymander of democracy' comes in all forms.

People are very loath to give up power, no matter how obtained, and think they are the only person to do the job. At least with elections the leaders have a shorter span.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

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

 

I totally agree

 

However, it does not mean that all shades of opinion will be expressed

 

It also means that opinions that are not "good" can be expressed

 

My point was that if a govt is getting everything right then a state controlled press is the only way to ensure that the press does not attempt to subvert what the govt is doing for their own ends.

 

I'm not advocating a state controlled press as we'll never be in a position where the govt is getting everything right

[geosname]

I totally agree

 

However, it does not mean that all shades of opinion will be expressed

 

It also means that opinions that are not "good" can be expressed

 

My point was that if a govt is getting everything right then a state controlled press is the only way to ensure that the press does not attempt to subvert what the govt is doing for their own ends.

 

I'm not advocating a state controlled press as we'll never be in a position where the govt is getting everything right

 

If you had a state controlled press you wouldnt know they were getting it wrong

[JOHNNYAITCH]

If you had a state controlled press you wouldnt know they were getting it wrong

 

Totally agree.

 

But if they are getting it right do you want a free press that's trying to subvert them for their own ends? My point is a free press isn't some isn't always trying to do good things...if we want a free press we have to accept the down side.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

A dictator denies that basic fundamental right of the human race to elect its leaders.

 

If a society had a dictator imposed on them who did the most amazing perfect job would there be elections? I say yes cos democracy gives us the right to make the wrong decisions..if it were Britain we'd probably vote him/her out to stop him/her getting too c0cky :)

[geosname]

Totally agree.

 

But if they are getting it right do you want a free press that's trying to subvert them for their own ends? My point is a free press isn't some isn't always trying to do good things...if we want a free press we have to accept the down side.

 

Yes I would, you cant get it right for everyone. Thalidomide did a great job controlling morning sickness, if the news of what else it did was suppressed would it have been banned? would anyone connect the dots nationally? [just an example]..... a free press should be the eyes, ears and voice of the people [im not saying it is], sometimes it does try... the simple fact is that the people need to make the decision that the government are doing a good job, without comparative information its almost impossible to do that