The Shotgun Blog
« Western Standard in the news | Main | Ralph Nader is running for President »
Sunday, February 24, 2008
From one Castro to another
Cuba's former "dear leader" Fidel Castro has officially stepped aside. Replacing him is his brother, former Minister of Finance and head of the army, Raul Castro. Raul had been acting head of state since Fidel got sick in 2006.
This still leaves Cuba in a bit of a leadership lurch. Raul is a septuagenarian--and it's hard to believe that he will be in tip-top shape for very long.
(Pictured: Fidel Castro with his brother, Raul)
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 24, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55088249c8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference From one Castro to another:
Comments
Several descriptions come to mind as to the type of gov't this describes:
Oligarchy, monarchy, military dictatorship and, of course, communist central committee.
Where is the outrage from the left?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-24 1:40:41 PM
There's only one man who can be President of Cuba.
TONY MONTANA!
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-02-24 2:11:00 PM
...why is there a blockade against Cuba again?
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-02-24 2:12:42 PM
Tomax
It's to prevent tooth decay in America. If our soft drinks were still made with cane sugar, we'd have a much worse epidemic of tooth decay and obesity.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-24 2:18:17 PM
tomax7
"...why is there a blockade against Cuba again?"
What blockade? I haven't seen any armadas off their coast threatening to interdict any vessels destined for their ports.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-24 2:25:27 PM
Here's the reason there's an embargo to this day:
"Responding to Castro's recommendation to launch a nuclear strike, Khruschev stated,
In your [Castro's] cable of October 27, you proposed that we be the first to launch a nuclear strike against the territory of the enemy. You, of course, realize where that would have led. Rather than a simple strike, it would have been the start of a thermonuclear world war.
Dear Comrade Fidel Castro, I consider this proposal of yours incorrect, although I understand your motivation."
Posted by: Bocanut | 2008-02-24 4:27:27 PM
Bocanut scores the winning goal!
Funny how the Canadian Left conveniently forgets Castro's war-mongering past.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-24 4:35:09 PM
Funny how the Canadian Left conveniently forgets Castro's war-mongering past.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 24-Feb-08 4:35:09 PM
It takes two to tango. But I am sure you're reply to me will be along the lines of :"The US is only defending itself and would not harm a puppy unless forced to."
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-02-24 8:17:27 PM
There were accounts of Castro having to be restrained by the Russians to keep his finger off the big button. Years later, Castro admitted that he recommended a first strike, knowing full well that Cuba would have been leveled. Making jokes about the US defending itself might be funny now, but in Miami in 1962 it was a serious matter.
When you think about it, Castro has been as big a symbol to the US as Bin Laden is. Just because the Russians pulled their missiles out didn't diminish the spirit of Castro's hatred. He would have used any means at his disposal at any time. It's lucky that even the Soviets knew to treat him like the lunatic he was.
Posted by: dp | 2008-02-24 8:55:56 PM
Ownership of Cuban slaves has passed easily from Fidel to Raul, that's very civilized for Communists - usually there's a bloodbath when the property owners are changed.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-02-25 12:08:57 AM
Snowy
"It takes two to tango. But I am sure you're reply to me will be along the lines of :"The US is only defending itself and would not harm a puppy unless forced to."
Still trying to mind read, I see. May I again remind you of how you claim to base your posts
"Oh, and unlike attacks on me, at least I base my criticism on Adam on his own postings, not on some imaginary things I believe about him."
Please stop imagining things you believe I will say or do. You are wrong. I'll prove it.
Now, in response to your post: I was criticizing the left's failure to indict Castro given it's claims for social justice. Social justice includes having a voice in your gov't. As Castro has failed to hold elections during his reign as king and has now passed on his power to a family member (monarchy), not to mention both as leader of the armed forces and having come to power by way of armed violence (military dictatorship), I'm sure you can appreciate my disgust with Castro and my disgust with the left's failure to criticize him front and centre.
Instead, we get you (and the left generally) attempting to misdirect the discussion into an irrelevant line of thought. Why do you feel the need to change the topic? Can't you stay within the context of the discussion of the moment here on this "politically oriented blog" instead of a knee jerk inclusion of US history/policy that has absolutely no bearing on Castro's failure to hold elections and absolutely no bearing on his handing power over to his brother?
Or do you think the CIA planned this to make him look bad?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-25 4:23:38 AM
Of course, what the right says about Castro is true. Why can't the enlightened right admit that Bush is also a murderer?
The left is so good at critiquing (spelling?) the right and vice versa.
They should believe each other and become libertarians.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-25 5:04:48 PM
Veteran,
"Of course, what the right says about Castro is true. Why can't the enlightened right admit that Bush is also a murderer?"
Because he followed the rule of law, combined with the consent of capitol hill, and will be leaving once his term in office is over.
If you can show Bush deliberately fabricated excuses in order to go to war for personal gain, then we can compare them. Otherwise, your plea is without merit.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-25 5:21:25 PM
hohoho,
If the law says I can put bombs through a foreigners window, I don't want to live under that law.
Here's where the right doesn't understand tyranny: Castro murders arbitrarily. The right calls him a murderer...and they are correct.
Bush (and I don't care if the whole world voted for the war) goes through a process, then murders innocent people and the right are satisfied. Gullible or what?
Murder of innocents is just that!! Process or not!!
4 guys are sitting in a room. YOU are one of them. The other 3 vote and sign doc's that your head should be blown off. As long as there's a vote involved, it's legitimate.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-25 6:00:13 PM
Veteran,
"4 guys are sitting in a room. YOU are one of them. The other 3 vote and sign doc's that your head should be blown off. As long as there's a vote involved, it's legitimate."
Try making it an apples to apples comparison.
4 guys sitting in a room. I am one of them. One of the other 3 first kills one of the other 2. Then he tries to kill me. I can't get out because the door is locked and this guy is relentless. I've finally had enough running because I'm becoming physically and emotionally exhausted. The last innocent guy refuses to help me out of fear or in sympathy with my attacker.
So I go after the my attacker. I'm on the offensive now. But he hides behind the other one. No matter how careful I try to get just my attacker, he shoves the other one in my path...until, accidently, a karate chop goes wild and kills the innocent.
Now it's just me and the attacker.
That's a much closer analogy than yours.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-25 7:35:19 PM
Quite artistic. You forgot to mention that the room belongs to the victim and you killed someone in that room in 1099.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-25 9:05:55 PM
Veteran,
"Quite artistic. You forgot to mention that the room belongs to the victim and you killed someone in that room in 1099."
I couldn't have killed someone in that room in 1099. I wasn't born yet. Additionally, that room hadn't even been built at the time.
Finally, my attacker didn't even know the person killed in 1099 and should be minding his own business instead of holding psychotic grievances.
My attacker has a gov't, right? Isn't it their job to police the territory.
We are talking about OBL, right? He got his authority, where exactly?
Why don't you take the side of his cousins who disagree with interpretation of history. His methods of grievance. His right to intervene.
Shouldn't they have the same consideration?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-26 5:49:26 AM
Veteran,
"Quite artistic. You forgot to mention that the room belongs to the victim and you killed someone in that room in 1099."
I couldn't have killed someone in that room in 1099. I wasn't born yet. Additionally, that room hadn't even been built at the time.
Finally, my attacker didn't even know the person killed in 1099 and should be minding his own business instead of holding psychotic grievances.
My attacker has a gov't, right? Isn't it their job to police the territory.
We are talking about OBL, right? He got his authority, where exactly?
Why don't you take the side of his cousins who disagree with his interpretation of history. His methods of grievance. His right to intervene.
Shouldn't they have the same consideration?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-26 5:49:47 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.