« Pakistan: Elections | Main | Pennsylvania Delegates: More Than You Want To Know »

February 19, 2008

Comments

Is Communist Cuba still more liberty-hating than Communist China?

I forget.

Is Communist Cuba still more liberty-hating than Communist China?

Yes, under the "ZOMG THERE BE COMMUNISTS AT MEES DOORSTEPS!!!!!" principle.

Don't forget this either, as Erick Erickson reminds us at Redstate:

American media props up Castro and Castro-loving America-haters are in for a world of hurt.

And with that, ladies and gentleman, I will no longer read or refer to Erickson, because how many times, even to a guy like me who can work a joke to death, can the crazy, drunken neighbor firing automatic weapons into his ceiling in the middle of the night stop being amusing before you just call the cops and move away.

Nothing will change. Raul is as much in charge now as he was 19 months ago, and there's no reason to imagine the uprising that the Cuban exile community so fervently hopes for will come to pass.

Jim Henley draws the appropriate conclusion.

there's no reason to imagine the uprising that the Cuban exile community so fervently hopes for will come to pass

Especially since the uprising they hope for is one in which the people who've been living in Cuba all along welcome back with open arms the people who left more than 40 years ago and selflessly sacrifice their own economic position to restore the wealth that the exiles lost.

"All-powerful"? WTF? Have they never heard of, I dunno, Hitler or Pol Pot or Mao or... sheesh.

"'All-powerful'? WTF? Have they never heard of, I dunno, Hitler or Pol Pot or Mao or... sheesh."

They were each vastly more murderous than Castro, by several orders of magnitude, of course.

And Mao reversed course, and came up with more eccentric policies than the the other two, for various reasons, including more time and more people under his control, although the other two certainly took a good shot at the wackiness award.

But in terms of being able to say "here's how I want things to be" in his own land, after a couple of years of rule, Castro was certainly in the top rank of having that done, as leaders of the past one hundred years go, although along with a bunch of other company, to be sure.

Off-hand, a claim that he had more personal authority and fewer complications, after five years in office, than Godwin's Object, is pretty defensible, I think. Hitler wasn't quite as unconstrained as a lot of people think.

It's a label that's arguable, to be sure, but it doesn't seem as off-the-wall to me as it seems to to you.

I would, to be sure, certainly say that the murderousness of all three other named leaders was vastly greater than Castro's, and thus that they were far far worse for their people and the world than Castro has been.

Ah, good old NYTimes: "while Fidel Castro lurks in the wings."

NYT: He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the fall of 1962, when he allowed Russia to build missile launching sites just 90 miles off the American shores. He weathered an American-backed invasion and used Cuban troops to stir up revolutions in Africa and Latin America.

Wow. Just wow.

Not a word about the many U.S. attempts to assassinate Castro that preceded the missile crisis.

The revolutions in Latin America were "stirred up" by the same conditions that led to the Cuban one, and by the Cuban example, not Cuban troops. (Once underway, most of those revolutions received training and logistical rearguard support in Cuba, but almost none had the involvement of Cuban troops.)

Cuban troops in Africa in the 1980s played a heroic role, without which the anti-apartheid struggle would have been much longer. They were a vital support to frontline African governments under assault from U.S.-backed mercenaries. The National Security Archives site has an exemplary sum-up of that history with supporting documents.

Times articles like this are why the NSArchives is a necessary organization.

"The National Security Archives site has an exemplary sum-up of that history with supporting documents."

I'm guessing you're referring to the "National Security Archive," singular, and here.

One colorful CIA report quote from 1967:

The report begins by bluntly stating, “Brezhnev thinks that Castro is some sort of idiot, and Castro probably isn’t too fond of Brezhnev either.”
Incidentally, Nell, while I sympathize with some of what you say, the Times piece is, after all, about Castro, not about U.S. policy towards Castro.

Castro wasn't a dictator--he was just a "unitary executive." . . .

Hilzoy,

Take a look at this organizational chart. you'll see that Fidel held three offices. He only stepped down from one, although he's admittedly signaling that he's stepping from all three. very well.

but the significance of this election, which Raul won today, was lost on most people. It was an affirmation of the Communist Party running the government. Cuban politicos said nice job on the electricity thing.

And probably, go ahead an let Lage expirement with some other foreign investments.

On the other hand, if they had voted for Alarcon, they would have been saying we want multiparty elections.

But no matter who won, the internal security was not at issue. As long as either Castro in charge of the Revolutionary Army, and as long as official US policy is to subvert the Cuban government, RAF will give the Ministry of Interior the green light.

we have to stop mucking with them, i.e. if we truly want to see greater liberty on the island.

oops, forgot the link to the organizational chart

http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu/main.htm

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad