Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 05:41

To all those who live in USA and say that the problem with Castro is that he never allow free elections, let me ask you a question, what's the point of free elections, when there's always fraud, like... mmm... i don't know... your country for example, do you remember the first time bush won?... No, well he and his brother cheated. Long live USA democracy!!!.

Second, all of you that say "he doesn't allow freedom of speech", let me say this, Dixie Chicks. Long live USA freedom of speech!!!

So you're saying you'd rather not have the choice to choose your leader?

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:05

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 05:41

To all those who live in USA and say that the problem with Castro is that he never allow free elections, let me ask you a question, what's the point of free elections, when there's always fraud, like... mmm... i don't know... your country for example, do you remember the first time bush won?... No, well he and his brother cheated. Long live USA democracy!!!.

Second, all of you that say "he doesn't allow freedom of speech", let me say this, Dixie Chicks. Long live USA freedom of speech!!!

So you're saying you'd rather not have the choice to choose your leader?

When my choices are shitty shito or Krap Asjol, no, i'd rather have a decent leader

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 06:23

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:05

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 05:41

To all those who live in USA and say that the problem with Castro is that he never allow free elections, let me ask you a question, what's the point of free elections, when there's always fraud, like... mmm... i don't know... your country for example, do you remember the first time bush won?... No, well he and his brother cheated. Long live USA democracy!!!.

Second, all of you that say "he doesn't allow freedom of speech", let me say this, Dixie Chicks. Long live USA freedom of speech!!!

So you're saying you'd rather not have the choice to choose your leader?

When my choices are shitty shito or Krap Asjol, no, i'd rather have a decent leader

Yes, but that's not what I asked. I asked would you rather have the choice or not? Obviously I'd rather have someone like Michael Crichton govern my life forever over Souja Boy and any one of the dipshits on my hallway, but that's not the question. Please answer accordingly.

By the way for the presidential ballot alone in the United States of America there are in excess of five candidates to choose from, after length primaries for party candidates. Compared with what I read about Cuba's last election, 31 individuals running for 31 of the top positions in the country (ie: only one person to "choose") I'd say that democracy is substantially superior. I don't mean to come off as a cliche "American" but fuck man, it's just common sense.

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:28

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 06:23

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:05

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 05:41

To all those who live in USA and say that the problem with Castro is that he never allow free elections, let me ask you a question, what's the point of free elections, when there's always fraud, like... mmm... i don't know... your country for example, do you remember the first time bush won?... No, well he and his brother cheated. Long live USA democracy!!!.

Second, all of you that say "he doesn't allow freedom of speech", let me say this, Dixie Chicks. Long live USA freedom of speech!!!

So you're saying you'd rather not have the choice to choose your leader?

When my choices are shitty shito or Krap Asjol, no, i'd rather have a decent leader

Yes, but that's not what I asked. I asked would you rather have the choice or not? Obviously I'd rather have someone like Michael Crichton govern my life forever over Souja Boy and any one of the dipshits on my hallway, but that's not the question. Please answer accordingly.

By the way for the presidential ballot alone in the United States of America there are in excess of five candidates to choose from, after length primaries for party candidates. Compared with what I read about Cuba's last election, 31 individuals running for 31 of the top positions in the country (ie: only one person to "choose") I'd say that democracy is substantially superior. I don't mean to come off as a cliche "American" but fuck man, it's just common sense.

There's not an absolute anwser to that question, it depends of many factors. In the case of Cuba, i don't think they needed elections while Fidel was alright. In the case of Mexico i don't think elections are the solution, neither are for USA.

Have you ever thought that choosing between 2 things that are the same, it's not really a choice, but instead, it's a lie?

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 06:38

There's not an absolute anwser to that question, it depends of many factors. In the case of Cuba, i don't think they needed elections while Fidel was alright. In the case of Mexico i don't think elections are the solution, neither are for USA.

Have you ever thought that choosing between 2 things that are the same, it's not really a choice, but instead, it's a lie?

Well, let me put it this way. No matter what you think, at least here in the U.S., where I know some stuff, you will be able to find a candidate running somewhere, that fits your needs, or at least very close to them. Indeed, usually the one's who win are at the far side of each other's spectrum, but you still get the freedom to choose. Now imagine someone gets elected. They do a shit job, perhaps how some people claim President Bush is doing. Well, through democracy there are countless way's that people can choose to stifle his actions and/or kick his ass out of office. However, if the majority doesn't choose to do that or fails to do that, there are these nice things called term limits, that doesn't let a person hold the office of the presidency for more than 8 years (I know, you can hold for longer, with death and such, etc) let alone 49 years.

Now obviously, some people hate Bush, some people love him, some people are indifferent to him. Regardless, he will be out of office this year. Now I tell you again, I'm sure some people hate(d) Fidel, some people love(d) him, and some people are indifferent to him. But at that time, whether it was the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s, there was no way for the people to choose if they wanted him as their leader.

I know I am ignorant of many world issues, but I am just trying to show you a very few of the advantages of a Republic Democracy over a One Party Socialist Republic. That's all. Are you not acknowledging this?

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:48

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 06:38

There's not an absolute anwser to that question, it depends of many factors. In the case of Cuba, i don't think they needed elections while Fidel was alright. In the case of Mexico i don't think elections are the solution, neither are for USA.

Have you ever thought that choosing between 2 things that are the same, it's not really a choice, but instead, it's a lie?

Well, let me put it this way. No matter what you think, at least here in the U.S., where I know some stuff, you will be able to find a candidate running somewhere, that fits your needs, or at least very close to them. Indeed, usually the one's who win are at the far side of each other's spectrum, but you still get the freedom to choose. Now imagine someone gets elected. They do a shit job, perhaps how some people claim President Bush is doing. Well, through democracy there are countless way's that people can choose to stifle his actions and/or kick his ass out of office. However, if the majority doesn't choose to do that or fails to do that, there are these nice things called term limits, that doesn't let a person hold the office of the presidency for more than 8 years (I know, you can hold for longer, with death and such, etc) let alone 49 years.

Now obviously, some people hate Bush, some people love him, some people are indifferent to him. Regardless, he will be out of office this year. Now I tell you again, I'm sure some people hate(d) Fidel, some people love(d) him, and some people are indifferent to him. But at that time, whether it was the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s, there was no way for the people to choose if they wanted him as their leader.

I know I am ignorant of many world issues, but I am just trying to show you a very few of the advantages of a Republic Democracy over a One Party Socialist Republic. That's all. Are you not acknowledging this?

Probably it's cuz my english sucks but i think you don't understand me. It doesn't matter if you have 10023 choices to chose from, if all of them are the same, you are just living the dream that you chose, when the really it's other.
But since neither you or i, are Cubans, this is discussion it's based on our ideologies, and the only way to know if they want "free" elections or a dictator, i think we will find out soon.

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 07:06

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:48

Written by Fhuesc on 26.02.2008 at 06:38

There's not an absolute anwser to that question, it depends of many factors. In the case of Cuba, i don't think they needed elections while Fidel was alright. In the case of Mexico i don't think elections are the solution, neither are for USA.

Have you ever thought that choosing between 2 things that are the same, it's not really a choice, but instead, it's a lie?

Well, let me put it this way. No matter what you think, at least here in the U.S., where I know some stuff, you will be able to find a candidate running somewhere, that fits your needs, or at least very close to them. Indeed, usually the one's who win are at the far side of each other's spectrum, but you still get the freedom to choose. Now imagine someone gets elected. They do a shit job, perhaps how some people claim President Bush is doing. Well, through democracy there are countless way's that people can choose to stifle his actions and/or kick his ass out of office. However, if the majority doesn't choose to do that or fails to do that, there are these nice things called term limits, that doesn't let a person hold the office of the presidency for more than 8 years (I know, you can hold for longer, with death and such, etc) let alone 49 years.

Now obviously, some people hate Bush, some people love him, some people are indifferent to him. Regardless, he will be out of office this year. Now I tell you again, I'm sure some people hate(d) Fidel, some people love(d) him, and some people are indifferent to him. But at that time, whether it was the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s, there was no way for the people to choose if they wanted him as their leader.

I know I am ignorant of many world issues, but I am just trying to show you a very few of the advantages of a Republic Democracy over a One Party Socialist Republic. That's all. Are you not acknowledging this?

Probably it's cuz my english sucks but i think you don't understand me. It doesn't matter if you have 10023 choices to chose from, if all of them are the same, you are just living the dream that you chose, when the really it's other.
But since neither you or i, are Cubans, this is discussion it's based on our ideologies, and the only way to know if they want "free" elections or a dictator, i think we will find out soon.

Alright man, I was just trying to explain democracy a bit more, and why it would be "favorable" over a one party system, according to freedom. And if Fidel was that great of a man, then I wouldn't see any problem with him getting easily reelected. It's the idea that he did not reinstate certain aspects of their constitution that just seems bizarre, and what make me question him and his actions. Indeed, these are our ideologies, but if no one would speak out, then no one would be talking, and since this is a discussion board, I wouldn't see any reason for us to not carry one our friendly debate.

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:05

So you're saying you'd rather not have the choice to choose your leader?

Where's the difference? One way or another nothing will turn up good....what if all the politicians are greedy pigs....and what if there is, let's say, the LEAST bad of them...the most normal of them...and when I vote for this normal politician who would do something but somehow he won't be allowed to power just because the other parties sum their votes up and form a coalition and ignore this politician I voted for....what if round 50% of citizens are gullible enough to elect one particular political party for every term, same people, same shite, same situation, and only getting worse....what then? I don't see the point...if there's a small percentage of people who would like to see things getting better in state but their votes are nothing since the majority of the population are "blinded" by the ever glorious ruling party who says "Vote for us or face the apocalypse! We know you whine every time that we rob your money but we think it's normal because we protect you from the evil!"....well...the only apocalypse is in fact the situation that the same people are elected all the time who make promises every year and eventually put the money in their pockets, invent new taxes and make other stupidities and the party who would at least make some positive changes are never given any chance.....democracy....it's all bout propaganda....the one with more powerful weapons of mass distraction wins the race....

Written by Ernis on 26.02.2008 at 19:58

Written by Clintagräm on 26.02.2008 at 06:05

So you're saying you'd rather not have the choice to choose your leader?

Where's the difference? One way or another nothing will turn up good....what if all the politicians are greedy pigs....and what if there is, let's say, the LEAST bad of them...the most normal of them...and when I vote for this normal politician who would do something but somehow he won't be allowed to power just because the other parties sum their votes up and form a coalition and ignore this politician I voted for....what if round 50% of citizens are gullible enough to elect one particular political party for every term, same people, same shite, same situation, and only getting worse....what then? I don't see the point...if there's a small percentage of people who would like to see things getting better in state but their votes are nothing since the majority of the population are "blinded" by the ever glorious ruling party who says "Vote for us or face the apocalypse! We know you whine every time that we rob your money but we think it's normal because we protect you from the evil!"....well...the only apocalypse is in fact the situation that the same people are elected all the time who make promises every year and eventually put the money in their pockets, invent new taxes and make other stupidities and the party who would at least make some positive changes are never given any chance.....democracy....it's all bout propaganda....the one with more powerful weapons of mass distraction wins the race....

That's a very valid argument, and you are heading towards a very cynical view of government, and sound more like an advocate of anarchism. If this were to happen, as has been seen, revolution, usually violent, ensues. That's how Fidel came into power remember? But once you're in that power, you're in the exact same position as those you kicked out, and most likely will not give it up, just like Fidel did. I'm not claiming he didn't do great things for his country (or vice versa), on the contrary. I'm merely questioning the policy of how he stayed in that power.

You're speaking a very hypothetical if statement, and I don't want to sound like an ass, but saying that everyone who votes, in any democracy, only does so because they are blinded is very ignorant. Shit, trust me, I know a lot of people are very ill informed but I also know a lot of people who do vote are informed enough to make rational decisions based on logic and reason. The type of fear you are talking about is what was prominent in the Soviet Union, The Third Reich, and many other countless monarchies and theocracies in history.

People who vote for a candidate, in any country, usually do so with some conviction, which means that is what they want. Not everyone is going to be happy with who's elected, but that's what competition is about, that's how power has the ability to shift from one to another. In a government like that of Cuba, they didn't have that choice. I don't understand how you guys can even back up a One Party System (and ONLY one party, on the ballot).

Unfortunately no, not everyone is going to be happy, but I point to the original procedural view of democracy as far superior to a "One Party" System, what some people would call a dictator. (By the way, I know there's a lot that can be improved about the U.S. and Cuba both, but I'm speaking on a more "model" view.)

I did a project work about Castro last week and what I found out him made me really respect him,I am speaking about the medical and educational systems that he established in Cuba that make this country in head of the american countries and very close to the developped countries in these fields.

Written by Black Winter on 17.03.2008 at 19:49

I did a project work about Castro last week and what I found out him made me really respect him,I am speaking about the medical and educational systems that he established in Cuba that make this country in head of the american countries and very close to the developped countries in these fields.

Indeed, I think you could find positive sides of any world leader. Believe or not, there are many positive sides to George Bush, my president. There were also many sides to Adolf Hitler too. However, just like the bad sides, most people can point out good things also. My main argument was the way he stayed in power. It wasn't even about how he used or misused it. (Even though staying in power was one way he (mis)used it.)

Written by Clintagräm on 17.03.2008 at 20:14

Written by Black Winter on 17.03.2008 at 19:49

I did a project work about Castro last week and what I found out him made me really respect him,I am speaking about the medical and educational systems that he established in Cuba that make this country in head of the american countries and very close to the developped countries in these fields.

Indeed, I think you could find positive sides of any world leader. Believe or not, there are many positive sides to George Bush, my president. There were also many sides to Adolf Hitler too. However, just like the bad sides, most people can point out good things also. My main argument was the way he stayed in power. It wasn't even about how he used or misused it. (Even though staying in power was one way he (mis)used it.)

Okay, I believe that the main things that a human being needs (education/health) are the basics that one should worry about, would it matter if he didn't stay in power and cuba elected a president every 8 years while people die because health insurance sucks!Remember that he probably got nothing for himself from his years in power,bank statistics show that he earns only the equavalent of 40 USD a month no one can prove the opposite
I am definetly not defending Castro nor communism but I think we usually under appreciate the man,at least I know I did, I usually watch american programs when these sentences are very commun:"communist bastard","piss on Castro's face"..

Written by Black Winter on 17.03.2008 at 23:13

Okay, I believe that the main things that a human being needs (education/health) are the basics that one should worry about, would it matter if he didn't stay in power and cuba elected a president every 8 years while people die because health insurance sucks!Remember that he probably got nothing for himself from his years in power,bank statistics show that he earns only the equavalent of 40 USD a month no one can prove the opposite
I am definetly not defending Castro nor communism but I think we usually under appreciate the man,at least I know I did, I usually watch american programs when these sentences are very commun:"communist bastard","piss on Castro's face"..

You're going to try to tell me that he lived a poor life? Yeah right. And no, I didn't say just because of elections all of his ideas would go down the drain. But it's that he didn't give people the choice.

Written by Clintagräm on 18.03.2008 at 00:01

You're going to try to tell me that he lived a poor life? Yeah right. And no, I didn't say just because of elections all of his ideas would go down the drain. But it's that he didn't give people the choice.

That's where you are wrong, the Cuban people, choose the revolution long time ago, and it was a long term choice.

Other thing i'll insist, is that your idea of choosing it's a little misguided by the way the system has thought you. Choosing between 2 steaming piles of shit, it's not a real choice. In the case of Cuba, as i said, they made a real choice long time ago.

And other thing, is that Cuba isn't a communist country, it's a socialist country.

Written by Fhuesc on 24.03.2008 at 07:11

Written by Clintagräm on 18.03.2008 at 00:01

You're going to try to tell me that he lived a poor life? Yeah right. And no, I didn't say just because of elections all of his ideas would go down the drain. But it's that he didn't give people the choice.

That's where you are wrong, the Cuban people, choose the revolution long time ago, and it was a long term choice.

Other thing i'll insist, is that your idea of choosing it's a little misguided by the way the system has thought you. Choosing between 2 steaming piles of shit, it's not a real choice. In the case of Cuba, as i said, they made a real choice long time ago.

And other thing, is that Cuba isn't a communist country, it's a socialist country.

We can argue all day, but guerrillas chose the way, not the people. And you're still speaking from a hypothetical situation. Are you going to tell me that not only in America, but every other democracy, that all choices are only steaming piles of shit and that dictators who don't allow voting on leaders is superior? I don't think so.

Written by Clintagräm on 24.03.2008 at 07:32

Written by Fhuesc on 24.03.2008 at 07:11

Written by Clintagräm on 18.03.2008 at 00:01

You're going to try to tell me that he lived a poor life? Yeah right. And no, I didn't say just because of elections all of his ideas would go down the drain. But it's that he didn't give people the choice.

That's where you are wrong, the Cuban people, choose the revolution long time ago, and it was a long term choice.

Other thing i'll insist, is that your idea of choosing it's a little misguided by the way the system has thought you. Choosing between 2 steaming piles of shit, it's not a real choice. In the case of Cuba, as i said, they made a real choice long time ago.

And other thing, is that Cuba isn't a communist country, it's a socialist country.

We can argue all day, but guerrillas chose the way, not the people. And you're still speaking from a hypothetical situation. Are you going to tell me that not only in America, but every other democracy, that all choices are only steaming piles of shit and that dictators who don't allow voting on leaders is superior? I don't think so.

Yes, as long as the ruling system is the capitalism, democracy it's a meaningless word. And in all the "democracies" around the world, the choices always are steaming piles of shit.

Do you really think that the Cuban revolution was a crazy idea that came only from Fidel and el Che, and that the rest of the people were alright been the dump of USA?

Written by Fhuesc on 24.03.2008 at 07:41

Yes, as long as the ruling system is the capitalism, democracy it's a meaningless word. And in all the "democracies" around the world, the choices always are steaming piles of shit.

Do you really think that the Cuban revolution was a crazy idea that came only from Fidel and el Che, and that the rest of the people were alright been the dump of USA?

Well, that's a personal opinion. I see flaws in Capitalism and Socialism and both, and believe in (theory) a middle ground, but unfortunately, to either side, one system fails while their own brand "works." So this argument is futile.

I'm not sure what you're second question is asking. But I think at the time, the revolution had meaning, especially in the face of Batista and his control, and I give Castro and Che credit for that. And even for Castro in building up the country, even though the help came from the Soviet Union. But in my opinion, his continued control of the country, and refusal to reinstate voting (as to my knowledge) that was in the constitution of Cuba, made him just as "bad" as Batista in the "power control" sense. And I don't agree with this.

At some point C.J.W.Wyatt,one should decide wether having several presidents with periods is more important than having a decent life in means of education and health care.You say your main argument is the way he stayed in power,well I think that is your only argument,because that equals nothing in face of what he did for his country.

Written by Black Winter on 24.03.2008 at 10:11

At some point C.J.W.Wyatt,one should decide wether having several presidents with periods is more important than having a decent life in means of education and health care.You say your main argument is the way he stayed in power,well I think that is your only argument,because that equals nothing in face of what he did for his country.

I think the people of Cuba (and every country for that matter) could argue that either way, and I really don't think any of us, who live outside, really know.

Written by Clintagräm on 24.03.2008 at 10:44

Written by Black Winter on 24.03.2008 at 10:11

At some point C.J.W.Wyatt,one should decide wether having several presidents with periods is more important than having a decent life in means of education and health care.You say your main argument is the way he stayed in power,well I think that is your only argument,because that equals nothing in face of what he did for his country.

I think the people of Cuba (and every country for that matter) could argue that either way, and I really don't think any of us, who live outside, really know.

We agree on this point

about this situation, I'll "copy" a brazilian quote:
"changes the mosquitos, but, the poop no"

this means...
Ok the president be changed, but the way of government, no

the problem about the comunism, it's mans in the command, presidents. while the PEOPLE are dying: lack of food, medicines, water, eletric power and something basic to a "confortable" life existence, the powerful guys of communism, like: raul castro, vladmir puttin, and others are living in their confortables castles. where the Marx, dukheim, engels and others theorics ideas?! communism, it's a hipocrisy like captalism every way slavering your people, using your ways.

Written by nehrodwarf on 09.08.2008 at 03:55

about this situation, I'll "copy" a brazilian quote:
"changes the mosquitos, but, the poop no"

this means...
Ok the president be changed, but the way of government, no

the problem about the comunism, it's mans in the command, presidents. while the PEOPLE are dying: lack of food, medicines, water, eletric power and something basic to a "confortable" life existence, the powerful guys of communism, like: raul castro, vladmir puttin, and others are living in their confortables castles. where the Marx, dukheim, engels and others theorics ideas?! communism, it's a hipocrisy like captalism every way slavering your people, using your ways.

well so imagen how bad was to ppl of Cuba in time of Batista or what was name of cocok sucker, who was thr before Fidle, who was thr only for US rich ppl and gambling ewtc...

fidel done a lot more of good things for humans then he, and then many more other,
thrs also a lot of poor ppl in USA ppl that don't have enough to buy food, and looks how Bush is living, it's easy to critic comunbist but don't do bad critic's on capitalis idiot

Written by EddieGunner on 11.08.2008 at 02:33

Written by nehrodwarf on 09.08.2008 at 03:55

about this situation, I'll "copy" a brazilian quote:
"changes the mosquitos, but, the poop no"

this means...
Ok the president be changed, but the way of government, no

the problem about the comunism, it's mans in the command, presidents. while the PEOPLE are dying: lack of food, medicines, water, eletric power and something basic to a "confortable" life existence, the powerful guys of communism, like: raul castro, vladmir puttin, and others are living in their confortables castles. where the Marx, dukheim, engels and others theorics ideas?! communism, it's a hipocrisy like captalism every way slavering your people, using your ways.

well so imagen how bad was to ppl of Cuba in time of Batista or what was name of cocok sucker, who was thr before Fidle, who was thr only for US rich ppl and gambling ewtc...

fidel done a lot more of good things for humans then he, and then many more other,
thrs also a lot of poor ppl in USA ppl that don't have enough to buy food, and looks how Bush is living, it's easy to critic comunbist but don't do bad critic's on capitalis idiot

ok you're right!

I know that's captalism it's bad too, has too much peoples that suffering with hungryness, diseases, extreme misery: In Brazil you easily find that. In everywhere in this world you see it, except some countries of EU.

But this topic, it's about the communism.

No one system it's perfect(at reality). I forget to write about a captalism, it's a imperfect system and the problem it's the mans behind it. in captalism: mainly at South America, they're corrupt.

Ok ppl sry me for ommiting my opinion about captalism, saying again... Captalism it's bad too, mainly when you're on savage captalism, where the peoples do all for money, I said all

Fidel give to hes ppl free Education and Free helth insurence i thr's not many goverments who give that to own ppl,

Written by EddieGunner on 11.08.2008 at 02:33

Written by nehrodwarf on 09.08.2008 at 03:55

about this situation, I'll "copy" a brazilian quote:
"changes the mosquitos, but, the poop no"

this means...
Ok the president be changed, but the way of government, no

the problem about the comunism, it's mans in the command, presidents. while the PEOPLE are dying: lack of food, medicines, water, eletric power and something basic to a "confortable" life existence, the powerful guys of communism, like: raul castro, vladmir puttin, and others are living in their confortables castles. where the Marx, dukheim, engels and others theorics ideas?! communism, it's a hipocrisy like captalism every way slavering your people, using your ways.

well so imagen how bad was to ppl of Cuba in time of Batista or what was name of cocok sucker, who was thr before Fidle, who was thr only for US rich ppl and gambling ewtc...

fidel done a lot more of good things for humans then he, and then many more other,
thrs also a lot of poor ppl in USA ppl that don't have enough to buy food, and looks how Bush is living, it's easy to critic comunbist but don't do bad critic's on capitalis idiot

Batista was a shitty thief and corrupt, but I certainly do not agree with what you say of Fidel having done more good things for Cubans than him. Of course before the revolution there was in Cuba an "unfair" system in which there were filthy rich people and also some misery, like happens to this very day in most latin american countries, but until that moment Cuba was in general an immensely wealthy country, with a PIB 3 times bigger than, for example, Spanish. A democratic transition could had made out of Cuba by far the richest country in LA, as they actually were before the revolutiuon, but without the big but correctable problems of the Batista dictatorship.

Now, the ideals of the revolution were lost in the very same moment the communists achived power, and everything became a machinery used to keep it. I'm coming back from Cuba, I was a month there, and let me tell you that theis situation is indeed depressing, and I can't understand what "good" Fidel had done to that people, as you say. Everyone lives in misery, as they see you are a foreigner they flock around you begging you for a dollar, the prostitution levels are incredible, even the cops ask for tips (as happened to me when I asked one about how to get to some place). All the economy works with black market, because with what people oficcialy "earn" (20 dollars a month) they can only live, and miserably, for one week.

Leaving the economic subject behind, it's shocking to how up to this day people can leave in that fear. Out of 1 cop or militar in uniform, there are 10 dressed in civil clothes, so everyone mistrusts everyone, it's very difficult even in "familiar" circunstances to get someone express their opinions about the system, and those who do, say with a nervousness that you can smell. The only exception are people who by their job have direct contact with foreigners, for example taxi drivers, which is probably the most wanted job because of the tips in dollars, and therefore to get their jobs they have to be very loyal to the government and they all talk you a lot about the wonders of their system, but everything is a slogan, all their "little" problems are due to conspiracies from abroad and so on. Is there are one kind of people which I had turned to despise in my life, they are Cuban taxi drivers and other people who debt their privileges to that country's government favors.

People are controlled in every aspect of their life, they can't chose their jobs, they can't work by themselves if they're not willing to pay exhorbitant amounts of money in bribes, they're all the fucking day being bombed with fucking cheap cliche propaganda and at the same time there's a so high percet of the population that depends directly on the government that it will be difficult a drastic change not causing much pain.

Another impressive thing you see in Cuba is the lack of production of anything. They don't have industries, the country side is abandoned... Up to the late 80s they survived with Soviet money and goods, after it collapsed Cuba fell in a big crisis and as they told us, until 1994 or something (a time called there "the gloomy years"), for example, they had only 4 hours of electricity a day. After that they had to open to tourism, and that's the way they get now their little incomes, especially thanx to resort places like Varadero where Cubans are forbidden.

Now there are some tiny changes going on with Raul. For example, they're making a reform in the country side in which the lands that now don't produce anything (which mean about 95%) of the total are being given to private owners, and there are other reforms in which they want people to earn according to what they produce, and pay more to professionals. As a matter of fact, today 30% of Cubans had studied in the university, and only 2% work in something related to their studies... so you can guess the "efficience" of their education system.

Anyway... poor Cubans. I cant deny that I had a good time being there, but at the same time it had been one of the most depressing experiences of my whole life.

50 years? Damn!

Its about time. the man had a fake anus, a FAKE ANUS. anyone with a fake anus should probably retire. In fact if any person of power had a fake anus, they should probably not be allowed to hold that power any more.... with the fake anus and all.

Achievement Unlocked - Say fake anus in a post more then 3 times.... YAY!!!!

Written by [user id=160] on 29.11.2008 at 03:52

50 years? Damn!

What did you accept? Gu is old and unfortunally from 20 century BIG leaders there only one Coroner Muamar Cadaffi who's on lead, in other lands there isnt . I neve rhad been Castro fan, I like more Babtista but I respact Fidel , guy who smokes and drinks shood be respected

Written by Bad English on 14.12.2008 at 13:41

Written by [user id=160] on 29.11.2008 at 03:52

50 years? Damn!

What did you accept? Gu is old and unfortunally from 20 century BIG leaders there only one Coroner Muamar Cadaffi who's on lead, in other lands there isnt . I neve rhad been Castro fan, I like more Babtista but I respact Fidel , guy who smokes and drinks shood be respected

what the hell's the matter with you?

I can tell most of you know absolutely nothing of Cuba... whatsoever.

Batista was corrupt, but in no way was he any worse than Castro. Atleast while Batista was in power the Economy boomed, & for a period of time the Cuban dollar was worth more than the American. Cuba had all top of the line technology & production factor was vast.
Im not defending Batista but in no way was he any worse than Castro.

When Castro took over he decieved the Cuban people & later came out as a Communist. He stripped all citizens of their basic freedoms. If anyone spoke out against him or disagreed with the current gov't they'd be killed. People went hungry & were unable to support themselves & their families off a measely $20 a month. Production plumetted. Most of you dont know this cuz you're too caught up in your "Fuck America! Fuck Capatilism!" trend. Castro crippled the Cuban citizens & like Southern Wind said; controlled every aspect of their lives. Castro's goal was to drive the country so far into shit that it'd have no other option than to depend on his regime. Castro DID indeed bring about a more "involved" education system; what better way to control the future masses than to brainwash them from the get-go. The only thing Cuba's got goin for it is it's tourist attractions, like Southern Wind stated & Cubans arent even allowed.

Castro has done NOTHING for Cuba but drive it into the ground & strip its people of any moral. Anyone who begs to differ can take a little trip through its neighborhoods & converse with the locals.