Danger; Rough Road Ahead...

[Columbia]

How do you know the next dictator in Cuba will be as "good" as the current one?

[JKP]

Quite a few people here do not support Cuba or Castro, and would prefer he be overthrown and replaced by actual communism, which is democracy in its highest form.

[KC]

Castro isn't a dictator.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 08:29 AM
Castro isn't a dictator.
Thankyou.
Hopefully, the next Cuban leader(s) will be "good" for the same reason Castro has stayed in power - mass popular support of the Cuban people for the further development of a socialist system.

[Columbia]

actual communism, which is democracy in its highest form

"Died of a theory." Jefferson Davis's reflections on the loss of the American Confederacy, 1865.



Castro isn't a dictator.

War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.



Hopefully, the next Cuban leader(s) will be "good" for the same reason Castro has stayed in power

The next Cuban leader(s) will get into bed with the cappies faster than China did in the 90's.

[kingbee]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:39 PM

actual communism, which is democracy in its highest form

"Died of a theory." Jefferson Davis's reflections on the loss of the American Confederacy, 1865.



Castro isn't a dictator.

War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.



Hopefully, the next Cuban leader(s) will be "good" for the same reason Castro has stayed in power

The next Cuban leader(s) will get into bed with the cappies faster than China did in the 90's.
castro is a dictator. of course he is- its just whether you agree with this sort of dictator.

and cuba won't turn capitalist by it's own accord- cuba has a system, not a personality cult.

[Simotix]

Just for thought -

Can anyone think who the next leader of Cuba will be?

Anyone take a guess how much longer Castro will live?

[bushdog]

Though i am highly critical of Castro for human rights issues, i believe that the cuban people are better of in his hands that multinational corporations that would surely rape cuba of any resources, pride, and beauty.

Isn't Raul Castro next in line, though he also is a geezer. Depending on who resides in the oval office when he dies, America may try some shady shit to install a puppet government, is Batista still alive? Mabye america will put him back in.

[ComradeOm]

Its hard to draw conclusions with so much propaganda floating around. Castro's death will prove for once and for all what sort of society Cuba is. If we have an orderly and democratic transition to power then all is well and good. If not then Cuba is, and always has been, a smaller and sunnier version of the USSR.

[KC]

War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.

I can post meaningless shit that doesn't contribute to debate too!




The next Cuban leader(s) will get into bed with the cappies faster than China did in the 90's.


Too bad that won't happen because the Cuban people won't elect someone that far right.



castro is a dictator. of course he is- its just whether you agree with this sort of dictator.


Cuba is democratic.


Though i am highly critical of Castro for human rights issues

You should be highly critical of people making that accusation.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:57 AM
Quite a few people here do not support Cuba or Castro, and would prefer he be overthrown and replaced by actual communism, which is democracy in its highest form.
LOL, LOL, ROFL, LMAO

Man, get serious.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I believe that Castro's death will provide an opportunty for the U.S. to prreemptively normalize relations with Cuba, perhaps helping to usher in a new era of freedom and democracy not afforded the oppressed cuban population for nearly 50 years. A temporary and peaceful occupation and new constitution would pave the way. Contractors could provide new infrastructure on par with the 21st century. It would be an incredible new time for Cuba, and it could truly be a great proxy asset for the U.S. sphere of influence, as well as a good example for the people of Venezuela.

If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Contractors could provide new infrastructure on par with the 21st century.

Oh yeah because American industries have such a great history of developing third world countries. History has shown us that economic imperialism such as that practised by America has hyper developed one or two areas of a countries economy and left the rest to rot. Just look at the whole of South America.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Alternatively, Capitalist Imperial, maybe the Cuban People would like to keep their standards of life - unheard of in the region's western puppet states (despite Cuba's distinctly less-than-enviable position as an "enemy" of the world's largest superpower). I mean, as great as the democracy we brought Haiti is . . . oh, wait, no, it's not.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:28 PM
If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?
Cuban Missle crisis ring a bell? Peace Agreement?

[Maynard]

How do you know the next dictator in Cuba will be as "good" as the current one?
How do you know he won't be? It's entirely possible that Cuba could go down the "reforming" path but I think the chances of this are lessened by the shift to the left throughout South America. 10 or so years ago, the United States, could have counted on the support of most if not all South American States, if it did try to install a new leadership but now that is far from certain. I doubt also that Cuba is sitting back thinking Fidel will live on forever, there will be plans put in place so that the system can continue on smoothly.


The next Cuban leader(s) will get into bed with the cappies faster than China did in the 90's.
What evidence have you got for this?


perhaps helping to usher in a new era of freedom and democracy not afforded the oppressed cuban population for nearly 50 years
Yes, that wonderful era of Batista, a beacon of freedom and democracy!!....at least for plantation owners, if that is your definition of freedom and democracy, then don't be surprised if the Cuban people forcefully reject it.


A temporary and peaceful occupation and new constitution would pave the way
Yes, because all American military occupations are temporary and peaceful.


reat proxy asset for the U.S. sphere of influence
Who the hell are you? Henry Kissinger?


good example for the people of Venezuela.
Venezuela has experienced the type of "democracy" and "freedom" you described before, that is the reason Chavez is there in the first place and the prospect of it coming back is why he remains.

[Columbia]

Lasar,

The comment was made:


'Castro isn't a dictator."

To which I responded:

War is peace; Freedom is slavery; Ignorance is strength.

To which you responded:

I can post meaningless shit that doesn't contribute to debate too!

Amazingly, you didn't critisize the "Castro isn't a dictator" comment, which is an outrageous statement. See below:



castro is a dictator. of course he is- its just whether you agree with this sort of dictator.

Perfectly said.

Everyone knows he's a dictator. If Kennedy had stayed in office for 40 years you'ld call him a dictator too. Duh!


Now, back to the issues:

Yes, I believe he is a personality cult. But I also happen to believe that Cubans like many of his reforms but also see greater oportunities after his death. I believe that once he dies there will be China-like actions to bring various businesses to Cuba. This, with genuine democratic process, will bring about U.S. recognition.

How will the people react to it? Very much like a democratic socialism, with a serious social net in education and health, and an exploitation of its business and tourist industry.

I don't have proof of this, how could I. I just believe it's so.

Buy why does anyone believe it would all be the same? While George Bush is not America, one could easily argue that Castro is Cuba. When George Bush ends his term, everyone knows what will happen: the U.S. will innaugurate a new president. When Castro dies, no one knows what will happen. I rest my case.

[guerrillero]

I heared that within the US embassy in Havana that their are a group of people appointed by Bush who are in charge of the post-castro era project. While I hope that the post castro era will not involve the US, I do hope that the embargo is removed. It`s inevitable that the US will get involved when Castro dies.. Especially with such a huge anti-castro cuban population in Miami.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by exoity+Nov 10 2005, 07:59 PM--> (exoity @ Nov 10 2005, 07:59 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:28 PM
If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?
Cuban Missle crisis ring a bell? Peace Agreement? [/b]
The American victory over the Cuban missle crisis and America's decision to let Cuba exist after the soviets stood down was a gift to Cuba. They should have been eradicated for their cohorting with the Soviets. However, America is a benevolent empire, and did not continue to squash the bug when we easily could have.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:51 AM
How do you know the next dictator in Cuba will be as "good" as the current one?
There's such a thing as a good dictator?

There are many underlying contradictions (class and there is a big problem of racism in cuba) in Cuba which will cause it to go one way or the other eventually. Until recently, I felt that it would pretty certanly become neoliberalized like the rest of the caribean, but with the backlash in Latin America against neolibereralization and renewed labor and peasant struggles against these policies, it is much more up in the air as far as what will happen in cuba.

If there is a popular revolution in, say Bolivia (this is the country I have placed my bets on), then this could have a big impact on the rest of latin america as well as Cuba where, if Cubans saw a country which had real worker power, then there would probably be renewd movements in cuba to at least reform, if not have an all out worker-revolution.

If things stay pretty much the same, then Cuba could possibly limp along and perhapse a new government would have to face social pressure from below and allow more transparency in the government and other reforms.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Nov 12 2005, 12:07 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Nov 12 2005, 12:07 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:59 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:28 PM
If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?
Cuban Missle crisis ring a bell? Peace Agreement?
The American victory over the Cuban missle crisis and America's decision to let Cuba exist after the soviets stood down was a gift to Cuba. They should have been eradicated for their cohorting with the Soviets. However, America is a benevolent empire, and did not continue to squash the bug when we easily could have. [/b]
Have you been drinking from a cup made of depleated uranium? The US isn't even benevolent to it's own citizens and soldiers let alone other countries.

Bay of pigs ring a bell? The US was humiliated because of that debocle and their underestimation of the suprizing amount of support the government there has. Sure they could have engaged in war there just as China could sqash Tiwan if they wanted, but the risks would be much greater than what would be gained by such invasions.

The US also didn't nuke Vietnam. that dosn't make it benevolent, that make it calculating and at least somewhat aware of what the political fallout of such a thing would entail.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+Nov 12 2005, 12:34 AM--> (Gravedigger @ Nov 12 2005, 12:34 AM)
Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2005, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:59 PM

Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:28 PM
If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?
Cuban Missle crisis ring a bell? Peace Agreement?
The American victory over the Cuban missle crisis and America's decision to let Cuba exist after the soviets stood down was a gift to Cuba. They should have been eradicated for their cohorting with the Soviets. However, America is a benevolent empire, and did not continue to squash the bug when we easily could have.
Have you been drinking from a cup made of depleated uranium? The US isn't even benevolent to it's own citizens and soldiers let alone other countries.

Bay of pigs ring a bell? The US was humiliated because of that debocle and their underestimation of the suprizing amount of support the government there has. Sure they could have engaged in war there just as China could sqash Tiwan if they wanted, but the risks would be much greater than what would be gained by such invasions.

The US also didn't nuke Vietnam. that dosn't make it benevolent, that make it calculating and at least somewhat aware of what the political fallout of such a thing would entail. [/b]

Have you been drinking from a cup made of depleated uranium? The US isn't even benevolent to it's own citizens and soldiers let alone other countries.

Speak for yourself. It's done quite well by me.


Bay of pigs ring a bell? The US was humiliated because of that debocle and their underestimation of the suprizing amount of support the government there has.

The US was not humiliated, really. We made a concious choice to balk on the air support. To be quite honest, Cuba will be ours again soon.


Sure they could have engaged in war there just as China could sqash Tiwan if they wanted, but the risks would be much greater than what would be gained by such invasions.

History will dictate such things.

[kingbee]

To be quite honest, Cuba will be ours again soon

is this the freedom and independence you want? do you say this about all the countries you wish to invade? perhaps this shows your true colours.

[Amusing Scrotum]

To be quite honest, Cuba will be ours again soon.

Are you seriously saying you want America to have colonies?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:28 PM
I believe that Castro's death will provide an opportunty for the U.S. to prreemptively normalize relations with Cuba, perhaps helping to usher in a new era of freedom and democracy not afforded the oppressed cuban population for nearly 50 years. A temporary and peaceful occupation and new constitution would pave the way. Contractors could provide new infrastructure on par with the 21st century. It would be an incredible new time for Cuba, and it could truly be a great proxy asset for the U.S. sphere of influence, as well as a good example for the people of Venezuela.

If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?
:lol:

Sometimes you talk about the glorious american empire, and other times, you talk about freedom and democracy. :o

Someone here is a bit confused. :(

[KC]

Amazingly, you didn't critisize the "Castro isn't a dictator" comment, which is an outrageous statement.

It isn't outrageous at all. You just tend not to look critically at all the information that is handed to you.




Everyone knows he's a dictator. If Kennedy had stayed in office for 40 years you'ld call him a dictator too. Duh!



Castro was reelected. Kennedy couldn't've stayed in office for 40 years because that would be illegal. Castro broke no laws.



Yes, I believe he is a personality cult. But I also happen to believe that Cubans like many of his reforms but also see greater oportunities after his death. I believe that once he dies there will be China-like actions to bring various businesses to Cuba. This, with genuine democratic process, will bring about U.S. recognition.


Have you ever been to Cuba? Since you haven't (because I know that you haven't), where does this load of shit come from? American news sources? :lol:



Buy why does anyone believe it would all be the same? While George Bush is not America, one could easily argue that Castro is Cuba. When George Bush ends his term, everyone knows what will happen: the U.S. will innaugurate a new president. When Castro dies, no one knows what will happen. I rest my case.


Well, since there isn't a dictatorship in Cuba, and since there is Democracy, they will re-elect a new President. You seem to know very little about Cuban politics as well.


Originally posted by Wikipedia

Fidel Castro is the President of the Council of State.

The Council of State is a 31 member body elected by the National Assembly of The People's Power. It has the authority to exercise most legislative power between sessions of the National Assembly of People’s Power, subject to its approval, and to call the National Assembly of People’s Power into session between its scheduled twice yearly sessions. The membership consists of a President, a Secretary, a First Vice President, five Vice Presidents, and twenty-three additional members. The President, the Secretary, the First Vice President, and the five Vice Presidents are also members of the Council of Ministers.

The National Assembly of People's Power is the legislature of the Republic of Cuba. It has 601 members elected from single-member electoral districts for a term of five years. It meets twice a year and between sessions its legislative powers are held by the 31 member Council of State.

The Council of Ministers is the cabinet of the Republic of Cuba. Its membership consists of the President, the Secretary, the First Vice President, and the five Vice Presidents of the Council of State, the heads of the national minstries, and such other members as established by law. In addition to this largish body, there is a smaller body, the Executive Committee, consisting of the President, the First Vice President, the five Vice Presidents, and such of the Ministers as chosen by the President to be on the Executive Committee. As of 2005, the ministers of: Economy and Planning, Finances and Prices, Foreign Investment and Economic Cooperation, Labor and Social Security, Metallurgy and Electronics Industry, Science, Technology, and the Environment and Tourism were on the Executive Committee.

It is democratic, as you can see. If you still deny this fact, you can have a look at The Cuban Constitution (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/constitution-1940.htm).

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Marmot+Nov 12 2005, 03:18 PM--> (Marmot @ Nov 12 2005, 03:18 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 10 2005, 06:28 PM
I believe that Castro's death will provide an opportunty for the U.S. to prreemptively normalize relations with Cuba, perhaps helping to usher in a new era of freedom and democracy not afforded the oppressed cuban population for nearly 50 years. A temporary and peaceful occupation and new constitution would pave the way. Contractors could provide new infrastructure on par with the 21st century. It would be an incredible new time for Cuba, and it could truly be a great proxy asset for the U.S. sphere of influence, as well as a good example for the people of Venezuela.

If you ask me, why wait for the death of Castro?
:lol:

Sometimes you talk about the glorious american empire, and other times, you talk about freedom and democracy. :o

Someone here is a bit confused. :( [/b]
Yes, you are, to assume that an empire and freedom/democracy are mutually exclusive, when in fact both theory and history dictate that they are not. :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Yes, you are, to assume that an empire and freedom/democracy are mutually exclusive, when in fact both theory and history dictate that they are not.

So the British colonies in the British Empire were "free and democratic." Or perhaps when America had its neo colonies of Nicaragua, Cuba and Iraq. These countries were all "free and democratic." :lol:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2005, 07:03 PM

Yes, you are, to assume that an empire and freedom/democracy are mutually exclusive, when in fact both theory and history dictate that they are not.

So the British colonies in the British Empire were "free and democratic." Or perhaps when America had its neo colonies of Nicaragua, Cuba and Iraq. These countries were all "free and democratic." :lol:
of course they were free and democratic

every country wants to be placed into submission to the freedom fighters in america and great britain

every protest against that kind of imperialism is a figment of your imagination :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 12 2005, 07:03 PM

Yes, you are, to assume that an empire and freedom/democracy are mutually exclusive, when in fact both theory and history dictate that they are not.

So the British colonies in the British Empire were "free and democratic." Or perhaps when America had its neo colonies of Nicaragua, Cuba and Iraq. These countries were all "free and democratic." :lol:
I didn't say every colony is. Cetain proxy interests don't lend themselves well to democracy.

Fortress America is a good example a free and democratic empire.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I didn't say every colony is. Cetain proxy interests don't lend themselves well to democracy.

Fortress America is a good example a free and democratic empire.

"Fortress America?" :blink:

Lets see how many of America's neo-colonies you can name that are "free and democratic?" ......because many of the countries in America's "sphere of influence" are neither "free" nor "democratic."

[FleasTheLemur]

Do have incredibly, undenilble proof that Castro is a dictator outside of the fact that he isn't willing to let capitalism grasp its deadly tenticals around Cuba? The only thing we really have to go by is that he was in office for a rather long time.

Of course, even while Ronald Reagan served only 8 years in officem he had an interest in coming back into office.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
Reagan made occasional appearances on behalf of the Republican Party, including a well-received speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. He publicly spoke out in favor of a line-item veto, a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, and repealing the 22nd Amendment, which prohibits a president from serving more than two terms. Here's a face full of source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Legacy_and_retirement_from_public_li fe)

I can't look into the mind of Reagan, but it appears to me that he had no intent on heeding the actions of Cinninatus. With his silver tounge and his devotion to Christianity, it would probably easily won back the White House and probably stayed in office for the duration of his life. I wonder if he would have been considered a dictator...

[Columbia]

If the lefties at this board don't want to call Castro a dictator, fine by me. Live in your dream world.

I suppose than, that Stalin wasn't a dictator either.

I did a search of this site using the word "Constitution", and read up on what the majority of the rev left views about it.

There is here a general distain if not disgust and disinterest in the U.S. Constitution on the part of the Rev Left. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason for this, as the constitution is merely a framework for the operation of the government, and not the decisions themselves. Outside of the Bill of Rights, it mainly discusses which branch and level has what power, how you get elected and the like.

I haven't read the Cuban constitution, that's true, but it hasn't been tested when it comes to presidential succession. We'll see.

It may interest you, FleasTheLemur, that President Washington was urged by his most important advisor, Alex Hamilton, not to step down, and even violate the Constitution to do so. Hamilton lost the argument that the president should be a life time term. (He believed that the loss of the office after stepping down would be too much of a humiliation for the average leader.) Washington had the support of the flegling U.S. Army, who thought of him as a god, and there was, in 1796, no 22nd Amendment. Washington established the two term rule which many presidents have had mixed views on. Those who seriously toyed with a third term included Jackson (extreemly popular in 1836), Grant (1876), perhaps Cleavland (he is our only two term non-consecutive president) toward the end of the Ninteenth Century, Teddy Roosevelt did run for that non-consecutive term as a thrid party candidate, FDR was the only man ELECTED more than twice. Nixon considered launching a group of people to try to repeal the 22nd, and you have your comment by President Reagan.

To think about running for a third term or argue the 22nd is a poor amendment is NOT a crime. I would have voted for Clinton had he the power to run again.

But what's weird is the celebration of the Cuban constitution on this thread, considering the anti-U.S. constitutional comments.

Since 1797, the lame duck president has stood next to the president elect (Washington chose not to use the army to stay in power), and you know President Bush will step down in 2009.

But what will happen in Cuba?

I don't believe the U.S. would invade as has been mentioned here. I think it's mainly wishful thinking, like that done by Chavez, hoping to revolutionize all of South America through fighting the U.S.

Ain't gonna happen. Sorry Hugo.

[KC]

If the lefties at this board don't want to call Castro a dictator, fine by me. Live in your dream world.

You are the one living in a dream world.




But what's weird is the celebration of the Cuban constitution on this thread, considering the anti-U.S. constitutional comments.

I am the only one that has presented the Cuban constitution. I have not celebrated it. Nor has anyone else here. Nor have I ever spoke against the US constitution.



But what will happen in Cuba?


Either a new president will be elected, or the seat will be abolished in honor of Castro. A new seat would be created, Administrator perhaps.

I was hoping your respond would have more substance; I was disappointed. However, I shouldn't have expected so much from you.

[Fighter]

Lazar, What in the Cuban constitution prevents profits on the part of citizens? Do they have a controlled economy by design, or by continued legislative decision?

[KC]

I mistakenly posted the wrong constitution. The correct constitution of Cuba can be found here (http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm).


Lazar, What in the Cuban constitution prevents profits on the part of citizens? Do they have a controlled economy by design, or by continued legislative decision?


ARTICLE 9. The state:

a) carries out the will of the working people and

- channels the efforts of the nation in the construction of socialism;

- maintains and defends the integrity and the sovereignty of the country;

- guarantees the liberty and the full dignity of man, the enjoyment of his rights, the exercise and fulfillment of his duties and the integral development of his personality;

- consolidates the ideology and the rules of living together and of conduct proper of a society free from the exploitation of man by man;

- protects the constructive work of the people and the property and riches of the socialist nation;

- directs in a planned way the national economy;

- assures the educational, scientific, technical and cultural progress of the country;

[Columbia]

I shouldn't have expected so much from you.

Don't worry. I don't expect anything from you.

[KC]

Don't worry. I don't expect anything from you.

Zing! :lol:

[Columbia]

:blush: