Bozo the kKklown Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 22 minutes ago, nonniey said: You can always look for silver linings from any leader. Was Pinochet grey? If you say otherwise you'd be a hypocrite. Point is some on the left, and you, treat Castro better than he deserves. He deserved to be indicted, he deserved prison as does his brother Raul. I'll straight say Pinochet deserved his indictment, why won't you say Castor likewise deserved the same treatment that Pinochet received? If you want me to say Castro deserved his indictment, then I will. He does. I think every dictator does, as does every one who enabled a dictator. Do you think Henry Kissinger should be indicted? Pretty much every post-WW2 US president should be indicted as well. I am cool with that, but I don't think you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 1 hour ago, nonniey said: You can always look for silver linings from any leader. Was Pinochet grey? If you say otherwise you'd be a hypocrite. Point is some on the left, and you, treat Castro better than he deserves. He deserved to be indicted, he deserved prison as does his brother Raul. I'll straight say Pinochet deserved his indictment, why won't you say Castor likewise deserved the same treatment that Pinochet received? yes... pinochet was grey. He instituted some policies that led to the long run productivity advantages that Chile enjoys today relative to its Latin American peers (similar to the policies instituted in authoritarian regimes in Korea, Malaysia, Uruguay, Thailand, China ...and most of the other "tiger-ish" countries of today. ...and.... Like Castro, he also oversaw alot of oppression. -----By the way.... Pinochet ruled Chile for about 15 years, and Castro ruled Cuba for aver 60... by most of your statistics Pinochet was quite a bit more heinous "per year" ... so can we all just agree that they both sucked in THAT regard? I am not sure how (or why) anyone thinks there is any argument there. Oppression and murder by a government sucks.... duh. on the other hand, Cuba took a completely different path than the chile/korea/etc economic model, and the communist legacy is clearly hampering current and future economic potential... but ... i don;t understand why people feel the need to so drastically overstate how much Cuba is currently hampered ECONOMICALLY by this oppression. Cuba was a pretty stunted economy when Castro took over , and Cuban GDP per capita right now is roughly $21k. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita ) ... in the same neighborhood as Chile and Uruguay (the shooting stars of Latin America) and more than double that of El Salvador, Paraguay and Jamaica (the middle of the road in Latin America). Cuba's economy is hampered by the Castro regime, not paralyzed. Of course GDP is a rough and imperfect measuring stick..and one that is particularly bad in command economies (where you have to assign $$ values for **** that the government is producing, and then "selling" to itself). Cuba is also going to hit a really ****ty time period when the Castro regime inevitably crumbles, and all those state-owned-enterprises are forced to actually compete in marketplaces (they will fail miserably, and collapse, and lots of that GDP production will evaporate...poof---- just like happens when EVERY communist regime collapses). Cuba will have a super painful decade (like Russia and all of Eastern Europe) and *hopefully* it won't lead to them willingly embracing a butthole like Putin.... this FUTURE crappiness can all be attributed directly to the Castro oppression.... and STILL the economic situation in Cuba isn't nearly as bad as "conventional wisdom" constantly states. They have a well educated workforce with many inherent advantages. If they can avoid a protracted revolution following the exit of the Castros .... they will remain squarely in the middle class of the Latin American community, with the potential for an EVENTUAL really strong upside (sadly, 15 to 20 years after the collapse) --- and unlike some Cuba's peers, its economic upside isn't because they are sitting on a treasure chest of copper or oil. (which is to say----Chavez/Maduro really HAVE **** all over the economic potential of THEIR country) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Now we know for sure there is an Alt-Left... the people who admire and defend this brutal stain of excrement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 1 hour ago, USS Redskins said: Now we know for sure there is an Alt-Left... the people who admire and defend this brutal stain of excrement. No, there is no alt-left. It's funny seeing the right wing feeling the need to try to label the otherside something. I don't even like the term alt-right since it's a cover for white nationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpyaks3 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 18 hours ago, nonniey said: I did say I believe the higher estimates may have included included those who died fleeing or in the camps/prisons and I was still digging. Deaths as a result of mistreatment in prison or reeducation camps would not count in these execution figures. But if we just go ahead with these figures 30-40 times worse than Pinochet would be an exaggeration looks like he was only 3-10 times worse. Which still begs the question why didn't that Spanish Court indict Castro? Why didn't Spain (or any other country) detain him after he had retired? I think we all know why - Castro was considered to be a Progressive and there is no way a progressive judge/court was going to indict a fellow traveler. Praising Castro like many are doing now is hypocrisy at it's plainest. You still haven't substantiated 3-10 times worse. You haven't substantiated anything solid other than the original Amnesty International report which states 237. Your other sources are simply guesses not backed up by anything. In reality pretty much any leader in the Cold War could be brought up and indicted (sans a few) that goes for Latin American leaders as for our leaders, Kissinger was brought up earlier and he is a perfect example, but there were plenty more American leaders who were directly or indirectly involved in the school of the Americas that no ones hands are clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 30, 2016 Author Share Posted November 30, 2016 It has been a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.