Jump to content
Grim Reaper

Fidel Castro

Recommended Posts

At long last. Finally.

 

He lasted about 10 years longer than everyone thought he would...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he dead yet?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest death of 2016 debate settled then.

 

Also, first Thanks 2016 of the year. Whilst he had some good policies, his human rights abuses were inexcusable.

International level? Sure. Personal level? I still think Bowie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His death brings life to Deathlist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest death of 2016 debate settled then.

 

Also, first Thanks 2016 of the year. Whilst he had some good policies, his human rights abuses were inexcusable.

 

There have been lots of big name deaths in 2016...

 

Is Castro really the biggest name out of the lot? For a certain amount of time in history especially during the Cold War, Castro was a highly significant figure and particularly in the 1960s, but Cuba is a small nation and there have been many other contenders this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Biggest death of 2016 debate settled then.

 

Also, first Thanks 2016 of the year. Whilst he had some good policies, his human rights abuses were inexcusable.

International level? Sure. Personal level? I still think Bowie.

 

 

Bowie, Muhammad Ali and Castro have got to be the three biggest contenders for this year's most iconic death in a year of many celebrity deaths

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not shocking at all. 90 year old man dies! No shit!

 

Exactly, I'm with you 100% on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Bowie, Muhammad Ali and Castro have got to be the three biggest contenders for this year's most iconic death in a year of many celebrity deaths"

 

Prince should also get honorable mention... just as iconic as the rest of this lot, and his death was much more unexpected

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest death of 2016 debate settled then.

.

You can't be fucking serious.

SirC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hopefully Trumps election will finish Fidel off.

 

It did.

 

Now the "biggest death of the year" debate can be reignited...

Another moron. How shallow you and DeathRay must be. And CoffinLodger. Am I missing anyone else who suggested such utter garbage?. What asshats--Or are y'all closet Commies? I guess then it's a big deal. Maybe 2016's Least Consequential Death, that I'll buy.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I disliked him, he was a fundamental historical figure in 20th century. And I don't remember Prince or David Bowie sighting nuclear warheads towards America.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I disliked him, he was a fundamental historical figure in 20th century. And I don't remember Prince or David Bowie sighting nuclear warheads towards America.

 

Yup, their seems to be a disconnect between what people categorise biggest deaths. As one of the most important historical figures of the latter half of the 20th century - leading a communist revolution, and running a human rights abusive dictatorship that most Cubans had known no different by the time of his retirement to his contribution to the cold war and many other historical events he is by far the biggest death of this year.

 

Musicians are famous and great, but the biggest death status should always be reserved for political and international figures should one big enough die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

He replaced a dictatorship propped up by gangsters with a dictatorship that provided health and literacy. Not ideal but on balance better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

 

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

Mind you I never saw Fidel draw anything so it's hard to judge

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

He replaced a dictatorship propped up by gangsters with a dictatorship that provided health and literacy. Not ideal but on balance better.

 

That may be true but that's like comparing a dog shit with a human shit.

You said 'overall' he was 'good' for Cuba which ignores the fact that, like his predecessor, he was a dictator that controlled the people, imprisoned and killed people who wanted a democracy and, because of the very fact that he was in charge, saw his country on its knees for decades.

Yeah, he provided health and literacy and so could others had they been given the chance to lead.

He was a dictator on the same level as Franco, Tito, and the Kim Kim Kum dynasty.

A cunt, basically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

He replaced a dictatorship propped up by gangsters with a dictatorship that provided health and literacy. Not ideal but on balance better.

 

That may be true but that's like comparing a dog shit with a human shit.

You said 'overall' he was 'good' for Cuba which ignores the fact that, like his predecessor, he was a dictator that controlled the people, imprisoned and killed people who wanted a democracy and, because of the very fact that he was in charge, saw his country on its knees for decades.

Yeah, he provided health and literacy and so could others had they been given the chance to lead.

He was a dictator on the same level as Franco, Tito, and the Kim Kim Kum dynasty.

A c**t, basically.

 

No I disagree. Fundamentally he was initially acting on the best of motives. If the Yanks hadn't tried to strangle the economy the country might not have been on it's knees so much. No one else was going to overthrow Batista who was a bigger c**t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

He replaced a dictatorship propped up by gangsters with a dictatorship that provided health and literacy. Not ideal but on balance better.

 

That may be true but that's like comparing a dog shit with a human shit.

You said 'overall' he was 'good' for Cuba which ignores the fact that, like his predecessor, he was a dictator that controlled the people, imprisoned and killed people who wanted a democracy and, because of the very fact that he was in charge, saw his country on its knees for decades.

Yeah, he provided health and literacy and so could others had they been given the chance to lead.

He was a dictator on the same level as Franco, Tito, and the Kim Kim Kum dynasty.

A c**t, basically.

 

No I disagree. Fundamentally he was initially acting on the best of motives. If the Yanks hadn't tried to strangle the economy the country might not have been on it's knees so much. No one else was going to overthrow Batista who was a bigger c**t.

 

He may have acted on the best of motives HIS motives. He didn't hand the country back to the people, did he!! Leave the Yanks out of the argument, he had decades to stand down and have free elections if he had truly cared about his people, he alone could have had the embargo lifted.

There is no case to make for him, none whatsoever, he was a stubborn, nasty, vindictive arsehole that set out to free the Cuban people only to make them his prisoner with his fucked up ideology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

He replaced a dictatorship propped up by gangsters with a dictatorship that provided health and literacy. Not ideal but on balance better.

 

That may be true but that's like comparing a dog shit with a human shit.

You said 'overall' he was 'good' for Cuba which ignores the fact that, like his predecessor, he was a dictator that controlled the people, imprisoned and killed people who wanted a democracy and, because of the very fact that he was in charge, saw his country on its knees for decades.

Yeah, he provided health and literacy and so could others had they been given the chance to lead.

He was a dictator on the same level as Franco, Tito, and the Kim Kim Kum dynasty.

A c**t, basically.

 

No I disagree. Fundamentally he was initially acting on the best of motives. If the Yanks hadn't tried to strangle the economy the country might not have been on it's knees so much. No one else was going to overthrow Batista who was a bigger c**t.

 

He may have acted on the best of motives HIS motives. He didn't hand the country back to the people, did he!! Leave the Yanks out of the argument, he had decades to stand down and have free elections if he had truly cared about his people, he alone could have had the embargo lifted.

There is no case to make for him, none whatsoever, he was a stubborn, nasty, vindictive arsehole that set out to free the Cuban people only to make them his prisoner with his fucked up ideology.

 

At the point of the overthrow Castro was doing the right thing for the people. The Yanks are important because didn't act when Batista overthrew the elected government of Socarras preferring to let Meyer Lansky invest in hotels, casinos etc. But as soon as Castro came in they acted, because their interests were compromised. This gave Castro a rationale for hanging on to power. Like all dictators he then wanted to hang on at any cost. Of course there should have been democratic elections years ago, but in 1959 the revolution was the best thing for the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite what others will say overall Castro was good for Cuba.

Well welfare was high on his list of priorities as was imprisoning anybody that disagreed with him.

I suppose, in context, Rolf Harris, overall, entertained millions and brightened up their lives.

He replaced a dictatorship propped up by gangsters with a dictatorship that provided health and literacy. Not ideal but on balance better.

 

That may be true but that's like comparing a dog shit with a human shit.

You said 'overall' he was 'good' for Cuba which ignores the fact that, like his predecessor, he was a dictator that controlled the people, imprisoned and killed people who wanted a democracy and, because of the very fact that he was in charge, saw his country on its knees for decades.

Yeah, he provided health and literacy and so could others had they been given the chance to lead.

He was a dictator on the same level as Franco, Tito, and the Kim Kim Kum dynasty.

A c**t, basically.

 

No I disagree. Fundamentally he was initially acting on the best of motives. If the Yanks hadn't tried to strangle the economy the country might not have been on it's knees so much. No one else was going to overthrow Batista who was a bigger c**t.

 

He may have acted on the best of motives HIS motives. He didn't hand the country back to the people, did he!! Leave the Yanks out of the argument, he had decades to stand down and have free elections if he had truly cared about his people, he alone could have had the embargo lifted.

There is no case to make for him, none whatsoever, he was a stubborn, nasty, vindictive arsehole that set out to free the Cuban people only to make them his prisoner with his fucked up ideology.

 

At the point of the overthrow Castro was doing the right thing for the people. He then should have embarked on a democratic process to decide who should lead the Country ..... but in 1959 the revolution was the best thing for the people.

 

EFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Clipped] Leave the Yanks out of the argument, he had decades to stand down and have free elections if he had truly cared about his people, he alone could have had the embargo lifted.

There is no case to make for him, none whatsoever, he was a stubborn, nasty, vindictive arsehole that set out to free the Cuban people only to make them his prisoner with his fucked up ideology.

Oh, how naïve you Westerners can get. Stand down to have free elections... and have a puppet regime installed by the CIA that's just as oppressive, ugly and undemocratic. You could've noticed them everywhere in Latin America from Pinochet's Chile to the Contras in Nicaragua.

 

It might be hard to justify his anti-American stance when you examine his actions through your biassed 21st century prespective, but the Cold War was a bit different. At that time, the Americans clearly preferred any loyal and anti-communist dictator to any left-leaning democrat (note that not all of these were hardline Stalinist commies).

 

Of course, Castro was no saint, but nor was Nixon or Kissinger, and you have to analyze their behaviour in a Cold War context in order to make sense of what they did to Latin American peoples.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use