digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at news.bbc.co.uk

Fidel Castro Announces Retirement

news.bbc.co.uk — Cuba's ailing leader, Fidel Castro has announced he will not return to the presidency in a letter published by official Communist Party paper, Granma.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • NickMilne, on 02/19/2008, -11/+302It's interesting; this lengthy period of inactivity on his part has seemingly ensured that his power base, if not his own personal control, will persist even after he is gone. If he had simply died it would have thrown Cuba into chaos - possibly a positive chaos, on the whole, but chaos nonetheless. But by gradually receding from public life, by slowly letting people forget he exists, whatever contigencies he and his advisors have planned have had all the time they need to come quite thoroughly into place.

    As much as this is big news, it's not as big as it perhaps ought to have been.
    • bluezinc, on 02/19/2008, -1/+29Well considering how many times we were all sure he was dead over the past few years I think it's big news that he's even capable of retiring at this point.
      • sockpuppets, on 02/19/2008, -4/+54This is proof that Fidel Castro was behind HD-DVD.
        • GliTCH82, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4I think you'll agree that sockpuppets' logic is flawless.
      • JettaMan, on 02/19/2008, -7/+7How many people did Castro murder anyway?
    • RGWX, on 02/19/2008, -18/+13Thoughtful post.
      • sovereign3, on 02/19/2008, -7/+24Unthoughtful reply.
        • SteveMax, on 02/19/2008, -7/+5Unfortunately, there are much more of the later than the former on Digg.
    • CelebVoy, on 02/19/2008, -24/+16"US President George W Bush said the news should mark the beginning of a transition towards democracy for Cuba. "
      LOL, who says they put up a fight? George is already looking for more countries to go to war with, and his first one isnt even over.
      • DaverCoe, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2What makes you think they won't?
      • nospinhere, on 02/19/2008, -10/+22I don't know why you are so shocked, unless you just want to get some mindless GWB bashing in for diggs. Democracy for Cuba has been the position of every American president in the last 80 years. The closest a President considered going to war with Cuba was JFK, even before the missile crisis.
        • ventralnet, on 02/19/2008, -7/+13he is just a moron looking for diggs... Saw GW mentioned in the article so he almost pissed himself
        • Swivelstick, on 02/19/2008, -11/+6Delude indoctrinated *****
          When the ***** has America ever cared for democracy in other nations let only the US
        • CelebVoy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4LOL, you guys are completely misguided. Is Cuba doing bad? For the past 50 years (if you teenagers have researched any history) we have wanted to go to war, but for what? Cuba is not in a bad position, they ARE NOT a threat to us in the least. JFK was the only one with a reasonable excuse to go to war with the country, but again we would simply crush them. I am an American and my position for Cuba is not to force them into Democracy as you say, leave them alone, let them work it out on their own just like the other places we try to instill our moral beliefs upon.
          • PeppermintPig, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Furthermore, Cuba should not be on some embargo list. It does not benefit positive change for Cuba, which makes me think that most US politicians in a position to care actually don't care. The best way to destroy tyranny is to give people a taste of freedom.
    • rebrad, on 02/19/2008, -21/+13There are many that will only be satisfied when his rotting dead carcass is on display in downtown Havana.
      • DaverCoe, on 02/19/2008, -20/+10sounds like americans...
        • lnf69, on 02/19/2008, -3/+31Actually Cuban-USAians really hate the guy.
        • DogBotherer, on 02/19/2008, -12/+14Criminals and terrorists you mean? (bye bye karma)...
          • p0s3r, on 02/19/2008, -9/+10Wow, how original. An American hating communist on digg. Where you from, San Francisco?
          • DogBotherer, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4@p0s3r:

            What a presumptuous idiot you are.... My guess is you know nothing about my thoughts on America and even less about my politics. My comment was 75% a funny and 25% a comment on the current administration's obsession with categorizing people in a blanket fashion because of ethnicity or country of origin... You're obviously well catered for by George and co...
          • gutistg, on 02/19/2008, -3/+175% funny? I think you're giving yourself a little too much credit.
          • DogBotherer, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2@gutistg - Proportion, not absolute quantity. YMMV...
        • RenJen42, on 02/19/2008, -9/+5your an idiot. Alot of cubans hate castro moreso because they either came here to get away from him, or they have family in cuba that are suffering. I had a friend that couldnt get in contact with a family member in cuba because on certain days they arent even allowed to use the telephone. Dugg down for ignorant comment
          • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1Indeed. Rate up.
          • deivys, on 02/19/2008, -4/+9WOW, you sure are ignorant. I am cuban and I can speak on the phone whenever I want. Its hard to talk on certain days like mother's day and other holidays because many people want to talk on that day and its hard to get a connection but thats a whole lot different than not being allowed.
          • RenJen42, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2I'm ignorant?? I'm just stating something that was told to me by someone that lived in Cuba/has family there. Maybe your family has different allowances.
          • Beveridge89, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2deivys, in an earlier comment you stated you lived in Florida. Thats probably why you have no problem using the phone.
      • Bodhinature, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6Too bad there were no protests in the streets of Havana. I guess the only people who hate Castro are those minority self-exiled Capitalist Cuban Pigdogs.
        • ComradeGoby, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4That is true. I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but the lower classes like Castro, at least from what I have gathered.
      • lostlyrics, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1I bet on a thousandfold amount of people
        who would pay for a latenite show, with
        the onan office chimp in a big hole that
        will be dumped fixed by holy elpehantes.
    • da_bradler, on 02/19/2008, -18/+59I still don't understand why the United States hates Cuba so much, Kennedy tries to invade cuba and fails when Castro kicks there ass. then America puts an embargo on Cuba then doubles it's embargo on Cuba accepting aid from Russia(in the form of short range nuclear missiles). Cuba gets rid of the missiles and the states is still pissed.

      The united states keeps demanding "free" elections just because the United States Specializes in Rigging central american elections and then if the elections don't go the way the united states want the a group of rebels magically become fully armed to the teeth.
      • noahhoward, on 02/19/2008, -17/+40Economic reasons. Castro kicked out our businesses because they were raping Cuba and the lobbyists called hell down on him.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 02/19/2008, -13/+5I'd believe it. But do you have a source for the skeptics or are you just talking out of your ass?
        • topapito, on 02/19/2008, -3/+18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalization
          Cuba - The Castro government gradually expropriated all foreign-owned private companies after the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Most of these companies were owned by U.S. corporations and individuals. Bonds at 4.5% interest over twenty years were offered to U.S. companies, but the offer was rejected by U.S. ambassador Philip Bonsal, who requested the compensation up front.[1] Only a minor amount, $1.3 million, was paid to U.S. interests before deterioratng relations ended all cooperation between the two governments.[1] The United States established a registry of claims against the Cuban government, ultimately developing files on 5,911 specific companies. The Cuban government has refused to discuss the effective and adequate compensation of U.S. claims. The United States government continues to insist on compensation for U.S. companies. In 1966-68, the Castro government nationalized all remaining privately owned business entities in Cuba, down to the level of street vendors.
          • Swift2, on 02/19/2008, -3/+17Havana was a close source of very cheap labor, and a place where you could go to gamble, hear great music and see donkeys do weird things with ladies in Mob-controlled night clubs. Castro hoodwinked a lot of people, convincing them that he was a democratic reformer, but he was a communist from the beginning. But taking all in all, the embargo should have ended during the Clinton administration at least. Only the fact that Cuban-Americans are a solid Republican voting bloc has kept the walls up; it serves no other purpose. Castro has found the US embargo very useful to rally his people against the evil Yanqui. The GOP likes in because it gives them Florida.
      • ToeCheese, on 02/19/2008, -11/+19Castro came on after the US received a black eye for supporting Trujillo in the Dominican Republic (Look up his history... One of the worst dictator's in this part of the world). Castro kick out tons of American corporations that were stealing land from farmers (AT&T and Bacardi just to name 2). He requested assistance from the US (as most dictatorships do) and when he was rejected the USSR came in to help them.

        The only reason the embargo exist right now is to get the Florida votes. If the US really wanted him out and democracy in you would like the embargo and let the US Dollar overtake Castro's rule.
        • notque, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7Dugg for the first paragraph. Regret for the second.
        • Aooogah, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Yes, because that worked so well with China.
      • topapito, on 02/19/2008, -17/+10Nice cliche there, raping Cuba. Nobody was raping Cuba. The rape took place during the next fifty years AFTER castro.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6They traded one for the other.
        • rpgmaker, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7The sad thing is the the US thinks that they can (or should, for what matters) overthrown every government they dislike.
          • tech42er, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1...in the Americas at least. Well, plus Iran.
        • lostlyrics, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1humbug - if ""united fruit""" had not
          succeeded in convincing the average
          american sixpack hero (who thinks with
          his ass - even a banana sticking out) that
          a handful hungry guatemala farmworkers
          at strike pose a threat to 200 million us-ppl
          castro would have miserably failed in cuba.

          but with Eisenhower and the prototype of
          corrupt spindoctors (streamlined after tricky
          dick - so they won't ever possibly fail again)
          cabans knew what might happen to them.

          they guessed castro was a real alternative.

          last not least - don't forget that even
          george washington was a serious *****.

          beginnings are no unitarian donuts&java set.
      • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -11/+5Cuba never kicked America's ass. JFK was just an idiot who didn't know his head from his butt, he royally screwed everything up per the Bay of Pigs.
        • rpgmaker, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6The CIA screwed everything up. That was kind of positive for the Cubans since the Bay of Pigs "incident" became a sensitive part of the USA foreign policy. Latin American countries know that the farther you are from the US the better. Brazil, Argentina and Chile can give testimony of that.
      • solid12345, on 02/19/2008, -5/+7Tired of people bitching about how America exploited Cuba. In the 1950s the average Cuban was better off than many Americans. The tourism and gambling sector alone made sure Cubans were driving the newest automobiles on the street before everyone else.
        • noahhoward, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3At what cost to them? Gambling has a habit of lowering the relative safety and value of an areas citizens.
        • lostlyrics, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1oh yeah even ashcroft is still
          very nostalgic about the nobel
          case of slavery, the south fought for
      • elarie, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I didn't think Kennedy invaded Cuba. I thought the CIA tried to and Kennedy wouldn't send the military...which is why he's dead.
    • keiran4u4eva, on 02/19/2008, -2/+10I think perhaps a reason for his retirement is that either a) He's been informed he doesn't have long left, or b) that he's actually dead already. And if that's true, as you said earlier, they'll have been given the right amount of time to put their plans and events into place.
    • OwdenBowden, on 02/19/2008, -7/+7The New York Post just reported that he found a lovely condo in Holindale Florida and will be moving in by the summer - so I guess its official.
    • lenninct, on 02/19/2008, -22/+6its about time, too bad we did not get to hang him, or execute him....
      • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -6/+3Indeed, really sucks the Cuban-Americans don't get to piss on his carcus.
    • Pritchard, on 02/19/2008, -10/+8Fidel Castro shall never be forgotten! He is very sexy...
    • notque, on 02/19/2008, -23/+11Excerpt from People's History of the United States concerning Cuba

      "The Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative agreement to prevent or overthrow revolutionary governments whenever possible -- whether Communist, Socialist, or anti-United Fruit-became most evident in 1961 in Cuba. That little island 90 miles from Florida had gone through a revolution in 1959 by a rebel force led by Fidel Castro, in which the American-backed dictator, Fulgencio Batista, was overthrown. The revolution was a direct threat to American business interests. Franklin D. Roosevelt's Good Neighbor Policy had repealed the Platt Amendment (which permitted American intervention in Cuba), but the United States still kept a naval base in Cuba at Guantanamo, and U.S. business interests still dominated the Cuban economy. American companies controlled 80 to 100 percent of Cuba's utilities, mines, cattle ranches, and oil refineries, 40 percent of the sugar industry, and 50 percent of the public railways.

      Fidel Castro had spent time in prison after he led an unsuccessful attack in 1953 on an army barracks in Santiago. Out of prison, he went to Mexico, met Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara, and returned in 1956 to Cuba. His tiny force fought guerrilla warfare from the jungles and mountains against Batista's army, drawing more and more popular support, then came out of the mountains and marched across the country to Havana. The Batista government fell apart on New Year's Day 1959.

      In power, Castro moved to set up a nationwide system of education, of housing, of land distribution to landless peasants. The government confiscated over a million acres of land from three American companies, including United Fruit.

      Cuba needed money to finance its programs, and the United States was not eager to lend it. The International Monetary Fund, dominated by the United States, would not loan money to Cuba because Cuba would not accept its "stabilization" conditions, which seemed to undermine the revolutionary program that had begun. When Cuba now signed a trade agreement with the Soviet Union, American-owned oil companies in Cuba refused to refine crude oil that came from the Soviet Union. Castro seized these companies. The United States cut down on its sugar buying from Cuba, on which Cuba's economy depended, and the Soviet Union immediately agreed to buy all the 700,000 tons of sugar that the United States would not buy.

      Cuba had changed. The Good Neighbor Policy did not apply. In the spring of 1960, President Eisenhower secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to arm and train anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Guatemala for a future invasion of Cuba. When Kennedy took office in the spring of 1961 the CIA had 1,400 exiles, armed and trained. He moved ahead with the plans, and on April 17, 1961, the CIA-trained force, with some Americans participating, landed at the Bay of Pigs on the south shore of Cuba, 90 miles from Havana. They expected to stimulate a general rising against Castro. But it was a popular regime. There was no rising. In three days, the CIA forces were crushed by Castro's army.

      The whole Bay of Pigs affair was accompanied by hypocrisy and lying. The invasion was a violation--recalling Truman's "rule of law"--of a treaty the U.S. had signed, the Charter of the Organization of American States, which reads: "No state or group of states has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state."

      Four days before the invasion-because there had been press reports of secret bases and CIA training for invaders-President Kennedy told a press conference: ". . . there will not be, under any conditions, any intervention in Cuba by United States armed forces." True, the landing force was Cuban, but it was all organized by the United States, and American war planes, including American pilots, were involved; Kennedy had approved the use of unmarked navy jets in the invasion. Four American pilots of those planes were killed, and their families were not told the truth about how those men died.

      The success of the liberal-conservative coalition in creating a national anti-Communist consensus was shown by how certain important news publications cooperated with the Kennedy administration in deceiving the American public on the Cuban invasion. The New Republic was about to print an article on the CIA training of Cuban exiles, a few weeks before the invasion. Historian Arthur Schlesinger was given copies of the article in advance. He showed them to Kennedy, who asked that the article not be printed, and The New Republic went along.

      James Reston and Turner Catledge of the New York Times, on the government's request, did not run a story about the imminent invasion. Arthur Schlesinger said of the New York Times action: "This was another patriotic act, but in retrospect I have wondered whether, if the press had behaved irresponsibly, it would not have spared the country a disaster." What seemed to bother him, and other liberals in the cold war consensus, was not that the United States was interfering in revolutionary movements in other countries, but that it was doing so unsuccessfully. "
      • woohalladoobop, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Dude, first off, who do you expect to read all of that? Secondly, it's really not very relevant at all to Castro stepping down; yes the Bay of Pigs played a large role in the Cold War, but by 2008 Castro's overall relevance has far surpassed his relatively minor role in one week in the 60's.

        Come on... try harder.
    • notque, on 02/19/2008, -21/+14http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1027/noam_chomsky_ ...

      An excerpt of "On terrorizing Cuba" by Noam Chomsky

      "Successful defiance

      The reasons for the international terrorist attacks against Cuba and the illegal economic embargo are spelled out in the internal record. And no one should be surprised to discover that they fit a familiar pattern -- that of Guatemala a few years earlier, for example.

      From the timing alone, it is clear that concern over a Russian threat could not have been a major factor. The plans for forceful regime change were drawn up and implemented before there was any significant Russian connection, and punishment was intensified after the Russians disappeared from the scene. True, a Russian threat did develop, but that was more a consequence than a cause of US terrorism and economic warfare.

      In July 1961 the CIA warned that "the extensive influence of 'Castroism' is not a function of Cuban power. . . . Castro's shadow looms large because social and economic conditions throughout Latin America invite opposition to ruling authority and encourage agitation for radical change," for which Castro's Cuba provided a model. Earlier, Arthur Schlesinger had transmitted to the incoming President Kennedy his Latin American Mission report, which warned of the susceptibility of Latin Americans to "the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands." The report did identify a Kremlin connection: the Soviet Union "hovers in the wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the model for achieving modernization in a single generation." The dangers of the "Castro idea" are particularly grave, Schlesinger later elaborated, when "the distribution of land and other forms of national wealth greatly favors the propertied classes" and "the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living." Kennedy feared that Russian aid might make Cuba a "showcase" for development, giving the Soviets the upper hand throughout Latin America.

      In early 1964, the State Department Policy Planning Council expanded on these concerns: "The primary danger we face in Castro is . . . in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries. . . . The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." To put it simply, Thomas Paterson writes, "Cuba, as symbol and reality, challenged U.S. hegemony in Latin America." International terrorism and economic warfare to bring about regime change are justified not by what Cuba does, but by its "very existence," its "successful defiance" of the proper master of the hemisphere. Defiance may justify even more violent actions, as in Serbia, as quietly conceded after the fact; or Iraq, as also recognized when pretexts had collapsed.

      Outrage over defiance goes far back in American history. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson bitterly condemned France for its "attitude of defiance" in holding New Orleans, which he coveted. Jefferson warned that France's "character [is] placed in a point of eternal friction with our character, which though loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded." France's "defiance [requires us to] marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation," Jefferson advised, reversing his earlier attitudes, which reflected France's crucial contribution to the liberation of the colonies from British rule. Thanks to Haiti's liberation struggle, unaided and almost universally opposed, France's defiance soon ended, but the guiding principles remain in force, determining friend and foe. "
      • diggopolous, on 02/19/2008, -3/+6I am awed by your mastery of the cut and paste.
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3notque has cut and paste Chomsky spam on digg more times than you've had hot breakfasts, youngin'.
    • notque, on 02/19/2008, -24/+14Shorter excerpt that is illuminating.
      http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1985----.htm
      from 1985

      QUESTION: Why is it impossible for Latin American nations to be sovereign and live free from interference by the United States?

      CHOMSKY: Well, it's impossible because they can't live in the shadow of a violent and sadistic superpower that is committed to domination and control. The United States is committed to ensuring that the resources of Latin America are available for the American economy in the manner in which the American economy desires them. This is part of a global pattern, but of course, the imprint is heaviest on the Caribbean Basin, where the influence of American power has been greatest for the longest period.

      If we ask ourselves why the United States is so fussed about Cuba, the answer is the same. The answer is given very clearly by some simple statistics. For example, there was recently a study by the Overseas Development Council, which puts out a "quality of life index" every year compiled on the basis of mortality rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, and literacy. This is for the world. I think the top countries are places like Iceland and Japan, then you go down to the Scandinavian countries and then you get to the United States, which had a rating of 97 in their index. And Canada is about the same, a little higher. The next country in North America is Cuba: 95. Then you have to go down to 89 before you start reaching the rich Latin American countries. Well, any country that is that high on the quality of life index -- that is, highest in its achievements in health standards, reducing infant mortality, increasing life expectancy, increasing literacy -- obviously that country is an enemy. I mean, it must be that they are using their resources for their purposes, not for our purposes. And therefore we are going to destroy them.

      In the case of Cuba, the United States has done everything it can to drive them into the hands of the Russians -- to ensure that there is a maximum amount of internal repression and brutality inside Cuba to reduce the possibility that it could be a model for anyone else. But there is still this tremendously threatening development. While throughout the whole region that the United States supports and backs, you have torture, murder, starvation, slave labor, and so on and so forth, there is one little corner of Latin America that has actually come to match the standard of living of the United States, which is astonishing. This is the richest country in the world, by any possible measure. Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world and it has approximately the same quality of life index, in terms of health and so on, that the United States has. That's really scary and that's an enemy. That's what they mean when they say, "We can't tolerate another Cuba." It is bad enough that there is one country that can serve as a model for this kind of development. Suppose there were two, suppose there were three. ...
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/21/2008, -1/+2“Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.”
    • notque, on 02/19/2008, -22/+11"The thing with the Cuban Five is such a scandal, its hard to talk about it. Cuba was providing the FBI with information about the terrorist actions taking place in the United States, based in the United States--completely criminal. So instead of arresting the terrorists, they arrested the people that provided the information, which is so ridiculous I find it difficult to talk about it. They put them under very hard conditions and it's not recorded. You can't read about it. So one of the reasons it goes on is because nobody knows about it. There were a few brief mentions, but all it said was that these people were informing Cuba that an unarmed plane was going .to fly over Havana. That's about the only story that was reported. The actual facts of the matter are not secret but no one knows.

      Take the embargo, which has been challenged by everyone. The European Union did bring a challenge to it at the World Trade Organization and the US just told them to get lost. In fact, what the Clinton administration said was that Europe was challenging a policy, at that time, of thirty years. These were US policies aimed at overthrowing the government in Cuba without announcing that yes, "we are international criminals and you are interfering with us and therefore you have no right to say anything" and then the US just pulled out of the negotiations and what's anybody going to do about that?

      The US has vetoed resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. It vetoed the Security Council resolution affirming the World Court judgment which condemned the US for pronounced international terrorism. No one mentions this, nobody knows it, it's not part of anyone's consciousness. You go into the faculty club or the editorial offices and people will never have heard about it. That's what it means to have extreme power and a very subservient intellectual class. It's out of history, it didn't happen."
      • BECoole, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8notque,
        You waste so much time with all that garbage when it all boils down to Castro's theft of assets, Cuban as well as American.
    • geekchic, on 02/19/2008, -3/+17@ notque - your tedious copy.pasting is going to get you put on SO many block lists now.

      Maybe you actually had an interesting point to make, but the delivery stank.
      • cheesehead, on 02/19/2008, -10/+4I quite enjoyed notque's submissions. I'm more concerned that when I dugg them up nothing changed, unlike the rest of the rest of the submissions that either went up or down. I think digg is rigged.
      • Bodhinature, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9I'm interested in informed opinion, not delivery. If I wanted delivery without info, I'd watch the Presidential Debates.
        • Supurcell, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9But that wasn't his informed opinion, it was him just copy and pasting someone else's informed opinion.
          • commernie, on 02/19/2008, -6/+2If you look at notque's comments, you'd realize that this is absolutely false. He is extremely well-informed about these issues. More so than the great majority of the people commenting on this story.
          • mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5Actually, notque regurgitates a lot of Chomsky so I wouldn't even call it someone else's informed opinion....just the rantings of an America-loathing antisemite "professor" who never met a dictator or tyrant he didn't get a woody for.
      • commernie, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Exactly what are you objecting to? I hope it's not the use of the copy and paste functions. I think perhaps you want him to write things in his own words. Why? If somebody else already said what he wants to say in a good way, why wouldn't he reproduce it here (with the appropriate credit given)?
        • diggopolous, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6I'll tell you what I'm objecting to - though the word to describe it is at the tip of my toungue. I'll be right back to paste the copy of "The Oxford's Unabridged Dictionary" - and you'll find the word - it's in there somewhere.
    • danarama, on 02/19/2008, -8/+3should have read "Fidel Castro Announces Death"
    • d3lta, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4The big news to me is that the official Communist Party paper is called Granma, thats hilarious.
  • Zander, on 02/19/2008, -101/+26Perhaps Bush will seek the office, it's one place he can probably do no harm.
    • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -12/+94I have a hard time taking seriously any political jibe from a guy with the confederate flag as his icon...
      • SRSco, on 02/19/2008, -4/+20Zander also makes no sense.
      • Birdoftruth, on 02/19/2008, -17/+3change a few words there and thats what happened to black people and voting. Congrats for the irony.
    • bluezinc, on 02/19/2008, -22/+18Oh, he'd find a way. There is no place on Earth that Bush cannot make suckier.
      • Suil, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7Arkansas?
      • bluezinc, on 02/19/2008, -13/+8I'm sorry people who are digging me down, what I meant to say is, "Bush is awesome and great, yay Bush"
      • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -7/+4Seriously, don't you have anything better to do than hating Bush while trying to have sex with your hand?
      • freedomkeeper, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2"suckier"? Really?
    • d3lta, on 02/19/2008, -17/+6Because the Earth is flat, somehow the sun still revolves around it and the only person worth talking about at any given instant is Bush.
    • PaulPinfield, on 02/19/2008, -8/+5MMM, one step closer to a place in Gitmo?
    • Swift2, on 02/19/2008, -10/+7If Bush was made President of Cuba, he'd ask the US for missiles so he could nuke himself and bring Democracy there, or the Rapture, whichever comes first.
      • guestworker, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Your hatred has made you stupid.
  • goanalog, on 02/19/2008, -92/+60NAA NA

    NA NA NAA NA

    HEY HEEEYYYY
  • danislost, on 02/19/2008, -21/+275Does this mean Cuban cigars are now legal?
    • smithc2005, on 02/19/2008, -13/+3I hope so!
    • geekchic, on 02/19/2008, -9/+69They always have been - where I live ;)

      • ChromaVita, on 02/19/2008, -21/+14Cuba?
        • pcore, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9Looks like he is from Canary Wharf, London.
        • waspbr, on 02/19/2008, -5/+61cuban cigars are legal everywhere outside the US
        • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -5/+41Everywhere, dude. It's only the U.S. that has a "problem" with Cuba.
        • geekchic, on 02/19/2008, -5/+6I have a box of cuban Esplendidos as it happens (well, only half a box left now) and shall puff away this weekend.
        • PaulPinfield, on 02/19/2008, -6/+25It's called the free world.
        • crapmatic, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5For ***** sake, chroma's response was funny... -9 diggs?
        • underburn, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4I got the joke too. ***** prudes.
        • Whippets, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2waspbr, adooga, and PaulPinfield you all FAIL for not understanding that it was a joke.
      • Crusader1145, on 02/19/2008, -19/+8Enjoy all those Cuban cigars in the "free world". Maybe while you're puffing away enjoying your smoke you'll give a thought to those in Cuba that have no freedom like you. Or all those political prisoners rotting in Cuban jails for daring to oppose Castro. Or possibly spare a thought for all those murdered by Castro, Che and company over the years. Does that cigar taste as good to you now?
        • notque, on 02/19/2008, -11/+18"Noam Chomsky: One comment about that, I actually agree with you that there should be more freedoms in Cuba, and in fact I talked about it on Havana radio. I talked about it on Havana national television in an open audience, something that I can't do about in the United States. Your point is correct, there should be more freedoms in Cuba, and people in the United States should be concerned about the state of human rights, let's say in Latin America.

          In particular, if they want to be concerned, a good place to start would be Amnesty International Human Rights Report which came out, the latest one. It runs through the record of human rights violations in Latin America. And there are plenty of them, they include Cuba. The worse human rights violations in Cuba that they bring up happen to be in Guantanamo. There are also human rights violations else where in Cuba, however if you compare the record in Cuba with the record elsewhere in the hemisphere, you'll find that Cuba is one of the least of the violators of fundamental human rights in the hemisphere. Now on the rest of the hemisphere it's you and me who are responsible for those human rights violations. In Cuba, it's somebody else. We are partly responsible there too because of the terrorism and embargo for 45 years, but yes, it's up to Cubans to deal with their human rights violations. It's up to us to deal with our human rights violations, which in Latin America, is far worse than Cuba, right through the hemisphere, take a look at it. Rights of women, rights to food, rights to free speech, the ability to organize unions, anything, just run through it. That's not me, that's Amnesty International. Take a look at Human Rights Watch, it's the same results.

          Now if people here want to be concerned about human rights, as they should, the place to start, always, is with your own activities, no matter where you are. You start with your own activities. That's what you are responsible for. Interested in paying attention to others? That's fine, much lower priority, obviously. But then do it honestly. Pick the leading human rights violators and go after them. The minor human rights violators are low in priority. And the ones that are carrying out human rights violation while under our jackboot, that's a different category all together.

          So for example to go back to Ireland and England, for 800 years of British repression of Ireland, there could be, probably were people in England, who were saying "look at the terrible human rights violations of the Irish." Let's take say, Nazi Germany. In Nazi Germany they were terribly upset about the violence and terror carried out by the partisans, which is correct, they did carry out violence and terror. But we hardly respect them for that, and there's a simple logic behind it. "
          • Crusader1145, on 02/20/2008, -1/+3This thread wasn’t about Chomsky but since you bring him up...

            It’s very gracious of Dr Chomsky to allow that the Cubans deserve "more" freedom. I think they'd probably settle for ANY freedom. As Chomsky typically does, he also reveals what an ignoramus he is. There so much material to work with here. This is the quote that keeps on giving! Following on from the brilliance of his opening sentence about “more freedom”, he states "I talked about it on Havana national television in an open audience, something that I can't do about [sic] in the United States." So Chomsky is saying that he's freer to speak in Cuba than he is in the US. Is he kidding? You can’t shut the man up. The media covers everything he says, no matter how deranged.

            Ah, but Chomsky’s on a roll here. In his second paragraph he launches into an apologia of Cuba’s brutal gulag by saying “...you'll find that Cuba is one of the least of the violators of fundamental human rights in the hemisphere.” And that “We [presumably meaning the US] are partly responsible there too because of the terrorism and embargo for 45 years...” Yup, it was the US that imprisoned all those librarians and human rights activists. But at least he does concede that, yes, the Cubans do bear some responsibility for their human rights violations too. I suppose he feels there’s enough blame left over from covering the US in it to apply a small dab on Fidel and Co. You know, just to be fair.

            I could go on but, frankly, I have better things to do than pick apart a Chomsky statement. Besides, it’s just too damn easy. I mean he just lays it all out for you and you can just go right down the line pointing out the illogic, inaccurate and outright lies of the man. Up is down, left is right. Truth is whatever I want it to be. Especially if you’re the Great Chomsky! Honestly, how can you people on the left put up with such an ignorant, gaseous, fool like this?

            notque: If you’re going to defend Castro and Cuba’s dictatorship at least do it with your own words instead of hiding behind someone else.
        • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -9/+2Sad but true. FYI, notque, your girlfriend is a good liar.
        • miko555, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2It tastes delicious
        • Vindexus, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5You can't be serious. People are buying cigars, not pissing on graves.
        • weirdness67, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Yes.
        • insurgente, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Din arbetarhatande, norska borgarjävel, sluta lyssna på amerikansk media. Leve Norsk Syndikalistisk Forbund!
      • leesuhyung, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1I always cross the border to canada to cuban cigars
      • shadowfoxmi, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Cuba?
      • dillibob, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1bolivia
    • mattyk123, on 02/19/2008, -9/+32They're illegal?
    • lajaw, on 02/19/2008, -5/+20Only for Monica and Bill.
      • forgottenhope, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1monica wasnt the first people bill got a blow job from in a public place. the clintons are like any political american family, their life is full of drug use drug smuggling. Of course this country would elect hilary, ***** they elected bill 2 times and george bush 2 times.

        america is a product of its politicians and vise versa. Find better politicians? Find an american that acutally gives a ***** that wants to run for office, then again the primaries are rigged and most elections for that matter.

        Forget hope, it has long passed us by.
        • guestworker, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Take another drink and a prozac.
    • patrickxbateman, on 02/19/2008, -17/+13Probably won't happen. His brother is taking over and from what I hear, he is just as much of an ***** as Fidel.
    • da_bradler, on 02/19/2008, -19/+2Piss off there expensive enough as it is without the US market creating insane demand.
    • DavidGX, on 02/19/2008, -21/+5Enjoy your cancer.
      • keymanjim2, on 02/19/2008, -2/+11I'm a Taurus.
      • bandomac, on 02/19/2008, -8/+5For some reason, your cancer comment really pisses me off. Eat a bag of dick, douchebag.
        • DavidGX, on 02/19/2008, -3/+2I pissed you off? That makes me happy.

          Enjoy your cancer, *****!
      • TheWorm, on 02/19/2008, -2/+9Nobody is going to get cancer from smoking a cigar every once in a while. If you want to feel holier than thou, go preach about cigarettes.
    • mapkinase, on 02/19/2008, -14/+7Lung cancer is legal.
    • heartcoldfusion, on 02/19/2008, -13/+7Cuban cigars suck now. The land they used for tobacco has been decimated so all the tobacco they grow is all complete crap now.
      • oderdigg, on 02/19/2008, -9/+11You have no idea what you are talking about. Typical American. I bought 2 boxes of Montecristco #2's last year and they are amazing.
        Just because you can't have one, doesn't mean you have to taint it with your jealously.
        • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4I lol'd
        • noloveIII, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Domincans are just as good if not better than Cubans. Cubans simply have have unwarranted prestige. If you have ever tried god of fire, a fine Domincan then I'm sure you would agree.
        • DemDude, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1but... but... tainting things with jealousy is the american way of life!
    • Ozzimo, on 02/19/2008, -1/+24Its not Cuba thats holding back the cigars (and rum I might add) its the US embargo. You want your stogies? talk to your congressman. (they could sneak some for ya.)
    • momsshizzle, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2I bought some the day I left Thailand and flew back to the USA. My backpack wasn't checked, lol. They would have found illegal dvds and stuff. I bought the Cohiba minis. Funny, they put pictures of what lung cancer does to you on the boxes.
      • miko555, on 02/19/2008, -4/+3They don't do that where you're from? Oh wait, the US of A doesn't inform their people of those kind of things
        • SwedishNinja, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Oh wait, we do. It's just that people choose to ignore the Surgeon General's warning on the packs of cigarettes.
    • onlyclave, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3Negroponte has stated that the trade embargo against Cuba will remain.
    • badogg, on 02/19/2008, -6/+1I've tried several grades of Cigar's over the years and every last one of them tastes like ass.
  • jm4847, on 02/19/2008, -66/+24Maybe now Cuban can turn into a democracy.
    • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -41/+54Why should Cuba turn into a democracy? It has effective, universal health care, and depending on whom you ask, equal or better literacy rates than the US. It has lower poverty than the US. It exports more doctors (trained in Cuba) to foreign countries for humanitarian aid than the US or just about any other country.

      Cuba is not full of millionaires living in castles watching dogs kill foxes, but it is generally a pretty nice place for the average person to live. If the current system is what is doing that (and it is - none of that was true before Castro), then more power to it.

      That said, it could be both a socialist state AND a democracy at the same time, which would be pretty cool. They would be much more likely pull it off than Russia.
      • jm4847, on 02/19/2008, -15/+41Yeah such a paradise where people can't even access the Internet freely or get involved in politics. Or leave without sneaking out.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -23/+16Hmm, would I rather have Digg? Orrrr not starve to death?

          I apologize if I seem crude to you for not valuing political involvement over basic human dignities and well being. If and when the US gets treatment for the highly treatable hordes of mentally ill homeless people wandering its streets, and stops refusing appropriate courses of medical treatment, transplants, chemotherapy, to people simply because they cannot afford insurance, THEN I will start accepting appropriate comparisons between countries like these.

          The US provides cake, when so many of its citizens go without bread. It is horribly upside down and wrong. Cuba puts the resources where they are most needed first, and if some luxuries cannot be achieved for some as a result, I am not shedding many tears.

          And remember, there's no genocides or anything happening there. Political involvement would not be a life saving activity. It would be a fulfilling activity, and a luxury, which although nice, is not, in my opinion, worth people starving to death.
          • jm4847, on 02/19/2008, -6/+20I'd rather not having to chose but yes, I value freedom more than bread.
            Is freedom of information, petition and political participation a "luxury" to you? If so, you're kinda lucky. You can live a happy life with just bread and water.
          • msfayzer, on 02/19/2008, -3/+15You make a fair argument, and the US certainly has more problems than I care to list. However, I personally don't quite agree with you. I really believe in Franklin's quote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" To me, freedom is the most important thing. Is the US the only place one can achieve that? No, of course not. Is Cuba one of those countries? My understanding is no. In a one party system where the people do not elect their leaders, there will always be the very real risk of people's liberties being hijacked.
          • smacksaw, on 02/19/2008, -0/+22That has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. Plenty of people go without access to health care in China. I've personally suffered because of delayed access to health care in Canada.

            Yet other socialist countries like Sweden do just fine. Capitalist countries like Switzerland do fine. Both have enviable health care, yet have approaches people would remark as being at odds with each other.

            Your strawman argument doesn't work. The straws you're grasping for are your hatred of one political system and favouring of another and your inability to be rational about the strengths and shortcomings of both, using healthcare as your red herring.

            The US and China? Both are rampant with corruption and cronyism. That's why healthcare sucks in both places.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Yeah, who cares about all the subjugation and imprisonment and torture when you criticize the state? At least they're getting fed, and that's all that matters!
          • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -5/+2America ain't perfect, but nobody is forced to starve in America when compared to anywhere else. We have much more homeless shelters than you can count; even our prisoners get better treatment than most of Europe (AKA Gitmo/Guantanamo bay: terrorists are allowed to eat any kind of food they want, and have HDTV). The only reason people hate America is because we're the biggest target to hate, not some human rights BS.
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2@ everybody who mentioned democracy in response to me:

            I have said elsewhere in this thread in numerous place, and again now, that Cuba with a democracy (still socialist/communist) would be the ideal. And I remind you that they have only had 50 years to get there, whereas these other countries like America, Sweden, Canada, etc. have had centuries. Just because they can't catch up to us 5 times faster than we got there, doesn't mean they're horrible and evil and need to be forced to do whatever. As numerous military engagements in the recent past have shown us - even if we can do everything we want with a country, you can't just make it democratic. Cuba is getting there, and will get there on its own.
        • danjwray, on 02/19/2008, -9/+10I'd rather live in Havana than the American chunk of the island...
          • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/19/2008, -7/+3So how did you end up in Gitmo? Jackass.
        • SuperMoses, on 02/19/2008, -6/+16@smufsahoy: Let's not forget all the sanctions and the trade embargo that impacts Cuba's economy. They are doing fairly well given the situation. Compare them with other Central/South American Countries and you'll see that they're actually one of the top countries in that region when it comes to quality of life.
          • andrew1193, on 02/19/2008, -4/+4"Compare them with other Central/South American Countries and you'll see that they're actually one of the top countries in that region when it comes to quality of life."

            When someone who's not absolutely deranged compares Cuba to the rest of Latin America, he will see that Cuba is one of the poorest.
          • JDove6, on 02/19/2008, -4/+7And they still offered medicine to 9/11 workers when our own healthcare system wouldn't
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4@andrew, money != quality of life. Being not sick, for instance, is vastly more important to quality of life than having a telephone, or car. And with universal health care, you don't need money to be not sick. Actually try reading the post that you are responding to.

            Also, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the point not one post above that mentioned how Cuba is the only such country to have an embargo against it by the US. What you are saying is similar to a comment like, "Well, if you compare that one-legged guy over there to everybody else, you will see that he is far slower at running the 100 yard dash." What the hell does that tell you? Nothing.
          • SuperMoses, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4To reiterate smurfsahoy's point: Money does not equal quality of life. Standard of living does not equal quality of life. I explained why their economy is moving slowly...that affects their standard of living, but given what they DO have, they've invested in their country which is why their QUALITY of life is higher than most of Latin America
          • andrew1193, on 02/20/2008, -3/+1In Cuba if you get sick, you'll be lucky to get a sheet to die under, and the only way many Cubans can get basic medications is if they make their daughters prostitute themselves to tourists.
          • SuperMoses, on 02/21/2008, -1/+1@andrew: They must not get sick then, because their infant mortality rate is LOWER than the US and their life expectancy rate is virtually equal to the US. With all of the alleged prostitution going around, you'd think sickness would be more common and life expectancy would be a lot lower.
          • andrew1193, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1"They must not get sick then, because their infant mortality rate is LOWER than the US and their life expectancy rate is virtually equal to the US."

            According to statistics pulled from Fidel Castro's ass, statistics that are not, and cannot be independently verified.
        • commernie, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Who says they can't get involved in politics? People in Cuba are far more politicized than people in the US. They participate in politics all the time. Elections have a very high turnouts, which to me says that people feel they are making a difference.
          • topapito, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Either go and vote, or lose your job. This is the result of your high turnout. If you are labeled as someone who does not participate because you failed to vote, you may never work again, thereby leaving you unemployed and exposed to the law that says that if you don't work, you are a menace to society and should be locked up. bingo, now you are in jail. Of course, you weren't taken to jail for not voting, or were you? Everything in Cuba works this way.
        • jeffwmartin, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1commernie, yes they have very high turnouts at elections, unfortunately there's only 1 political party and therefore only 1 candidate for each office that can be voted on.
      • smacksaw, on 02/19/2008, -4/+28Funny, I thought there were democracies out there with universal health care.

        I had no idea that the right to express oneself and to enjoy freedom precluded them from comprehensive healthcare.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -8/+14Did the UK or the Netherlands become stable democracies with universal health care in 50 years? I didn't think so. You can't compare countries that are brand new in their innovative improvements with ones that have had centuries to conveniently lounge around, updating social policies inch by inch.

          Cuba was a complete ***** in the 20s or so. The rate at which it has improved is immensely greater than that of Europe, and there is no reason to believe that it cannot progress on to allow all of its current benefits, in additional to personal liberties in the near future, as it becomes more and more possible to do so in a stable and consolidated Cuba. WIthout the US having anything to do with it.
        • smacksaw, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4Don't compare Cuba with Europe.

          Compare it with Latin America. Compare it to Costa Rica. I would pick Costa Rica over just about any country in Europe for superiority in just about everything. Their approach is opposite to Cuba's in many regards, but the proof is in the pudding. How about Belize? Panama? Even Chile? Chile was in utter turmoil after the CIA and KGB did a tug of war with them. Now, with compassionate yet restrained socialism they have become not only a Latin American powerhouse, but a country to watch, rising on the world stage.

          The rate in which it has improved has been retarded by it's communist oligarchy.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/19/2008, -3/+5Most countries, especially Latin American countries, were ***** in the 20s. Cuba has made almost no progress in the last 50 years or so. That probably has something to do with Castro's iron fist. People tend not to do so well when they live in constant fear of imprisonment if they badmouth the Party. But hey, if it's so good over there, I'm sure you'd love to trade places with Juan, who just floated over to Florida on a couple of barrels tied together with twine. I'm sure he can tell you how great it is, too.
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Or they don't do so well with a major embargo from the richest country in the hemisphere, that nobody else has to deal with...

            Just kind of a minor little detail there you're missing.
        • RenJen42, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Yeah, i worked with a guy that came over here to escape castro. I'm sure its awesome living in a place where you have to wear red every tuesday, and you can only use the phone on mondays. If you speak your mind you are put in prison/killed. Man, im tired of thinking for myself. I want all my freedoms taken away please.
      • SRSco, on 02/19/2008, -1/+9Russia more likely to turn into a Democracy than Cuba? o_O Which Russia are you talking about?
      • poidh, on 02/19/2008, -5/+22You just made me laugh dude. Who needs democracy when you have universal healthcare? Lol, you simpleton.
      • lajaw, on 02/19/2008, -23/+20You socialists are disgusting. The Cuban people have been repressed since Castro took the reins of the country. They have had no say in the type of government thrust upon them and you seem to forget about all the refugees risking their lives to come across to the USA. And for health care, you've been watching that fat butt Moore's movies too many times. I personally have Universal Health care. With my insurance card, I can go anywhere in the US and receive medical care. But I have to pay for that privilege myself. I'm not waiting for "mother government" to supply it for me.
        • Ihatenicks, on 02/19/2008, -12/+6Repressed?.. what do you mean?

          ..like people not being allowed to vote or the voting system being corrupt?
          or the government closing down portals of free speech and political dissent?
          or the government lying to the people and legislating against them?

          ...oh..wait..that's Amerika
        • Coven, on 02/19/2008, -7/+11Congratulations, you can afford to let the insurance companies bend you over and stick it in you. Want a cookie?
          • Klingon00, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2As opposed to what? Let the government 'bend you over', as you say?

            Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a price for everything and in a socialist society, everyone ends up paying, one way or another eventually. Unfortunately the cost is usually freedom.
          • Coven, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2So the better choice is to let a profit driven company decide what is best for you at a rediculous premium? I'm not necessarily asking for socialized medicine. The ideal would be more restrictions on how insurance companies can screw over the patient, along with lower premiums. Why, in 8 years, have my premiums doubled while my coverage was almost cut in half? The insurance companies are ***** crooks and only care about their investors. We are nothing but numbers to them.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/19/2008, -2/+4Ihatenicks, you're an idiot. Things aren't so hot in the US, true, but it's nowhere NEAR as bad as Cuba. Guys like Michael Moore and anyone else who badmouths the Republicans would be locked up for life if this was Cuba. Get your head out of your ass.
          • Ihatenicks, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2LMAO... I think you need to change your definition of idiot.

            Cuba doesn't pretend to be anything other than what it is.. The United Fascist States of Amerika actually has the barefaced gall to hold itself up as the shining pinacle of democracy.

            Who's thinking is more repressed?
            Those who are aware of the regime they live under, or those so brainwashed they don't have a clue and still claim otherwise?

            BTW, the majority of Casto's adorers love him through choice not because they're told to.. THE WHOLE ***** WORLD HATES BUSH AND THINKS THE AMERIKAN POLITICAL SYSTEM IS A BAD JOKE!
          • RenJen42, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Yeah and we wouldnt have stand up comedy because anyone that made a joke about the president would be hung, but hes right we have it waaay worse.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Um, yes, Cuba does pretend. A lot. Take a look at what Castro and his government say about Cuba versus the reality of it sometime. But hey, totalitarianism is A-Okay as long as you let everyone know you're a totalitarian! Cuba is the more oppressed. Anyone with half a brain could see that. Say that you think Bush is a blubbering ***** here. Nobody cares. Say that Castro is a blubbering ***** in Cuba and you'll find yourself in one of his lovely prison resorts. Yep, the US is so much worse because of shady government dealings!

            You're just another angry teenage Digger with no clue. Oh, and spelling it "Amerika" and throwing the word "fascist" around doesn't make you look cool. It makes you look like an idiot.
          • GRX3000, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2He's right: we do have it worse. Well, those of us not part of the extreme leftists whom consider ourselves American. We're not allowed to support our country in any shape or form, we're not allowed to stand against an illegal tax-code, and we're not even allowed to stand against an extremely rampant socialism...
          • Ihatenicks, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1No.. it makes me ACURATE...Amerika is THE most fascist country since Germany '39.. get over it and do something about it...

            ..oh.. wait.. you can't, you're utterly powerless.... it's gotten so bad that your govevernment has even started to remove entire websites that encourage whistleblowing and political dissent.

            Idiot? Really? Me?
          • Klingon00, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Ihatenicks has now proven to me that he absolutely does not understand what "fascist" means, and on a fascism scale, I would rate the United States rather low compared to many places, especially Cuba of all places. Sure, it doesn't mean that there isn't the ever present danger of Fascism rearing it's ugly head in the US in the future, which is why education is so important.

            Please begin by understanding that Socialism and Communism have both led to some of the worst fascist states in history (National Socialist movement, and Stalinism). Democracy, in which bloodless changes of rulers voted and chosen by the governed, is the only antidote to fascism in the world today.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Why is it that lack of political power is repression, but lack of government aid to people who need it (US) is not repression?
      • highandmighty, on 02/19/2008, -7/+17It's always amazing to me how anti-democratic the left really is. Usually they just deny it, but least this time it is out in the open.
        Does anyone really think that if you criticize the Cuban regime you get full access to this wonderful health care system?
        • mempko, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Ironically it is the ultra right that are anti-democratic. In fact most left are very pro democratic but anti capitalistic. Look at Ron Paul for instance, ultra right but anti-democratic.
          • Klingon00, on 02/19/2008, -3/+1Ron Paul is by all accounts I've seen a Libertarian... which on a left right scale places him more centrist with more Anarchic tendencies. Ultra right are those who support financial freedom, open market economies (Capitalism) and tend to be more supportive of controlling marriages, abortion and things like that.

            On a libertarian political scale, Libertarians are as centrist as the Green party, but at opposite ends of the Government to Anarchy scale.

            By contrast, Democrats tend to be leftists, pro government control of capitol (socialism/communism) and more open on issues of marriage, abortion and less tolerant of free markets and the American dream (rich people).
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2Cuba is anti-democratic, but it does not have to be, and likely will not be in the future. It took America and every other industrialized democracy far longer than the 50 years Cuba has had to get to where they are now.

          And democracy is in no way in conflict with communism, by the way. You can very easily have a democratic communism. In fact, it's pretty difficult to have a communism that is anything BUT democratic. Socialism (Cuba) can also be democratic, but it has more room for other kinds of governments, too. Actually, democracy is exactly what Marx advocated for both of these economic systems, which is a big part of why it is inappropriate to say Marxism has failed - it hasn't ever really been tried yet.

          Also, in response to Klingon a couple posts down - neither communism nor socialism requires government control of means of production (capital). There are many other possibilities - for instance, stock dividends divided equally in the form of wage raises to laborers in the company, with the managing positions themselves being on salaried labor only. Hiring or firing of top positions is done by vote of the workers. That would be socialistic, and completely privately run, for example.
      • topapito, on 02/19/2008, -4/+17Hey Smurf, you get your info direct from fidel? Sounds exactly like the party line. I am sorry, your ignorance is showing. I have family in Cuba, spent my first 33 years there. I have never seen what you claim is there. You sure you are talking about Cuba? My Cuba? The Island? Just south of the Florida straits? Funny, what I see there is nothing like what you claim is there. Btw, for those of you who are so unhappy outside of Cuba, I know about 11million people who would happily trade passports with you. Please leave a message to begin the trade, you will not only get a chance to live in paradise under communism, you will make 11million people very happy.
        • CiXeL, on 02/19/2008, -11/+4typical miami cuban, every comment supporting cuba has to be one of castro's goons.
          • ChildeRoland420, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Maybe because he actually knows enough about Cuba to understand that anybody supporting it either has to have ulterior motives, or are just ignorant.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4Okay, you decided to leave, or your family did. That makes you pretty obviously somebody who is going to complain about it, and that's fine. I never said everybody would be happy, obviously not. The point is not to make everybody joyous and elated. The point is to make the people who are worst off not dead or abandoned. And THEN start worrying about everybody else. Without many economic resources (embargo), they can only go so far on the second half of that game plan.

          If everybody in Cuba felt like you, there would have been a revolution by now. Their military is not that strong, and plenty of countries have revolted against far worse, quite successfully. Add in the intense American support for such a move, and it's pretty baffling why that would not have happened by now if things are as you say, and everybody is just wallowing in misery over there.
          • topapito, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Hey smurf, not really complain. I'd say more like demystify the propaganda. You see, I understand that everything you can see, read or hear about Cuba is government controlled. There is a lot of mythology whirling around about Cuba. There were very little dead or abandoned before castro, but he has had 50 years to shape opinion. The embargo is only seen by the Cubans, as I can walk into the airport for example, and buy coca cola, or I can walk into a tourist supermarket, and buy food. Only Cubans who have the money can do these things.
            In order for there to be a revolution, there has to be hope that something will change. I point you to the 1980 mariel boat lift, 75,000 left in a few days, I can ssure you Cuba would have been emptied out were it not for the US closing the doors. You must have heard about Jose Marti? He said: "when a country's people emigrate, the governors are one too many". "Cuando un pueblo emigra, sobran los gobernantes". I saw this phrase for the first time in my adulthood. Yes, it has been removed from all his writings in Cuba. What else has been removed from Cuban records? Child deaths? Malnutrition? If a government takes it upon itself to delete verses of a patriotic poet and leader, what could you put past it?
            I am not a Miami Cuban, as a matter of fact I have been against the embargo for many, many years. My theory has won me the hatred of many Cubans, but I stand firmly by my beliefs.
            The military is not strong enough to fight a war with say, the US, but unarmed Cuban people are easily run over by the military, not to mention, a secret police that rivals the KGB. People are generally tired, they all dream of leaving one day, it has become the safest revolution, leaving. Again, hard to explain unless you have lived it. I leave you with this: When castro took power in 1959, Cuban immigration had pending, in it's offices, 250,000 residence applications from Spanish citizens dying to go to Cuba. Guess how many there are now? A better system? Hard smurf. Not complaining, just clarifying.
          • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3If all of what you say is true, then yes, it sounds pretty bad, and I would change many of my views about Cuba (though not socialism in general - it definitely can work, like where it has perhaps come about more naturally, Europe, etc. Cuba could just be an example of a forced system which could just generally never work).

            Still, I am concerned about such anecdotal evidence. And I realize that my sources may, in fact, have been anecdotal as well, despite having been presented scientifically, and somewhat conducted by non Cubans (they could have directed them to nicer neighborhoods, etc.). It's a problem in general in debating these things at all. And waiting around until after it's all over for the facts to come out is obviously not ideal.

            I think we can agree that a good step for now at least is just to get rid of the embargo. If that can't cure much, at least it would open up a lot of more objective information in the process that could signal what needs to be done next.

            And thank you for being calm and polite on Digg (at least in this second post), more so than I am in most cases. It is very refreshing.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/19/2008, -3/+9What the hell? Cuba has universally ***** healthcare unless you're an esteemed member of the Party. Then you get decent to mediocre healthcare. Equal or better literacy? Sure, if you believe the crap that Castro spouts, but if you'd bother to read history, you'd realize that communist countries are rarely reliable in their numbers. Lower poverty than the US? Maybe because Cuba has their own poverty line. The country is almost entirely in poverty compared to the US.

        And one thing you're forgetting: If Cuba is such a lovely place, why the HELL do thousands of people risk their lives by grabbing whatever floats every year? Oh yeah, because they have no say in their government and get locked up if they criticize it. They live in crummy conditions with bare necessities and little else. If you believe communist propaganda, then you are an absolute moron with no grasp of history.

        And if the people want those things you so ignorantly claim are already in Cuba, I think they should have the right to vote on them, don't you? Yeah, who needs elections?
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -2/+3Nope, poverty assessed by the same line in both countries shows Cuba as better off.
          Literacy and healthcare are very easy to observe by any tourist entering the country - we are not relying on Cuba's provided numbers. In case you forgot, most places in the world allow their citizens to visit. And Cuba, unlike North Korea, etc. welcomes them with open arms, and has a very productive tourist industry. Sociologists included.

          Why do they float away? Because no country in the world has zero emigration, and in Cuba's case, the United States refuses to let any official program give them boats, due to the embargo. So they have to float. If we got over ourselves, they could sail here in comfort. Cuban policies have nothing to do with it.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Yeah, right, Cuban policies have nothing to do with it. That's why people knowingly RISK THEIR LIVES to emigrate. How many people do that when they're not hugely desperate? And how many tourists see more than just the tourist areas? Cuba has tourism because Castro is smart enough to know that it will bring in desperately needed capital. And how do you trust Castro's numbers on poverty? Was there an independent study? I'm not too confident of that.

            Seriously, pull your head out of your ass. Castro is a despot. People are risking their lives to leave and you say it's just normal emigration. He locks people up for dissent and you think that's just fine. You are a truly deluded human being.
      • iceblademan, on 02/19/2008, -2/+8Are you kidding me? Cuba has lower poverty rates than the US? What kind of statement is that? They live in ***** conditions and little shantytowns that are very susceptible to storm damage. If Cuba were the size of the US, you'd have people trying to float to Japan and Europe to get the ***** away.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -2/+2Given their economic limits (largely due to an embargo with the huge, wealthy country right next to them that could make them incredibly well off if it got past it's spooked horse ***** mentality), Cuba is indeed doing quite well. Might I remind you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville The US has had and still does have its share of shanty towns. Many of which are highly susceptible to storms. I don't know if you've been living under a rock the last several years, but there was this thing called "Hurricane Katrina" a while back that sort of demonstrated that. And just these past couple of weeks, the death toll from trailer parks and poorly constructed housing in the Midwest as a result of tornados has claimed many many lives. Considering that Cuban citizens have sufficient housing for health and safety in almost all normal conditions, they are doing very well for their economically disadvantaged position due to the US' closed borders. Likely much better than we would be doing if Japan and Europe all embargoed us.

          As for floating - If the US allowed Cuba to give its own citizens boats by lifting a certain embargo, perhaps they wouldn't have to make their own? There's a CRAZY idea for you...
      • andrew1193, on 02/19/2008, -2/+5"Why should Cuba turn into a democracy? It has effective, universal health care, and depending on whom you ask, equal or better literacy rates than the US. It has lower poverty than the US."

        You're mentally ill.

        Anyone with eyes can see that the "poor" in the US are vastly richer than ordinary Cubans.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3This is incorrect. The poorest people in America live more people to a room, eat less nutritious food, die from exposure and starvation, accidents, homicide, etc. all at a higher rate. Having eyes doesn't help you if you only use those eyes to look at propaganda, instead of facts.
          • andrew1193, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1"This is incorrect. The poorest people in America live more people to a room,"

            Cite?

            "eat less nutritious food,"

            The "poor" in America eat less nutritious food because they are simply ignorant as to how to eat healthy on a budget. Observe that a lot of "poor" people in America are fat.

            "die from exposure"

            The only people dying of exposure in American cities are those who are homeless due to either mental illness or drug addiction, and even then it's rare enough to be reported in newspapers.

            "and starvation,"

            If there was one person starving in America due to economic reasons, the media would parade that person on every television channel and in every newspaper.

            "accidents, homicide, etc. all at a higher rate."

            Homicide rates are generally lower in total police states. Accidents are a fact of life, and a lot can be chalked up to Darwinism. I suppose you'd rather have the State wipe your ass from cradle to grave and keep you locked in a cage.
      • dagnome1984, on 02/19/2008, -1/+4It's a communist ***** whole where the indivdual is economically repressed. You are one sick authoritarian piece of *****.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2So your argument consists of regurgitating McCarthyist paranoia, without any logical reasoning whatsoever. WHY is it a bad thing to put some economic limits on people? If not letting people get ridiculously rich for doing nothing all day long allows Cuba to feed the starving and poor, how is that a bad thing? Back yourself up.
      • greeniemeani, on 02/19/2008, -1/+0Where the ***** is the In Soviet Russia joke?
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1Prison for talking, sounds sweet dude. You are an idiot.
    • cageybee, on 02/19/2008, -25/+8if they wanted a democracy - there would be one long time ago.
      • jm4847, on 02/19/2008, -6/+19Except they'd be thrown in jail for opposing Castro.
        • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -6/+12There is very very marginal resistance in Cuba, and the government is not really very heavy handed at all police-wise. Plenty of countries all around the world have successfully revolted with significantly more totalitarian security regimes. Most Cubans simply do not want to, or at least they don't feel strongly enough about it to do much, for 50+ years, which generally is a good sign that things are not that terrible.
    • orijimi, on 02/19/2008, -19/+8Democracy is just what Cuba needs! Just look at Iraq. ... I mean in the future.
      • knde, on 02/19/2008, -5/+10I'm sure you jest...

        But I can't help but think Cuba would best left to its own devices. The notion of "Spreading Democracy" doesn't sit right with me. Country X should have no right to determine what political structure Country Y practices.

        If Cuba now chooses to welcome change (and America) so be it, but it would be dreadful to initiate some hyper-capitalistic-democracy plan for that country. Say what you want about the man's politics but lets remember that his citizens do not suffer*

        *Interpretation of "Suffer" may differ from person to person.
      • orijimi, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1I'm glad at least you understand sarcasm.
    • jm4847, on 02/19/2008, -17/+5lol at idiots burying me for a typo.
      • SRSco, on 02/19/2008, -3/+8I dugg you up. I don't see what's wrong with wondering if Cuba can turn into a democracy.
        • jm4847, on 02/19/2008, -4/+2Thanks, I meant people burying me for my misspelling.
      • spider418, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1Democracy? I think both spellings are correct. It think it's one of these... I say toh-mah-toh, you say toh-may-toh, you say democracy and I say ....bomb the living crap out of them!
    • RevJonathan, on 02/19/2008, -10/+16Wow, getting buried because someone wants to see a neighbor nation get freedom from communist regime.

      Being able to protest one's own government without getting shot is kind of a big deal people...
      • adooga, on 02/19/2008, -8/+17Yeah but we're not all that impressed with the type of "democracy" that the U.S. likes to export. Leave this to the Cubans please.
        • highstriker, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1I think the problem is that for an American style of government- the people have to actually want it for it to work.
          • adooga, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Nobody wants an American style of government. It's the laughing stock of the western world.
        • burtonbe, on 02/19/2008, -2/+1The original poster said nothing of the US forcing democracy on Cuba.
      • ciaran036, on 02/19/2008, -3/+4It's definitely not for us to decide anyway. Communism is a fantastic concept and there are many advantages to it, including that in communism, you don't have people pretending to have a say in how the country is run, like how it is in every democracy in the world.
      • commernie, on 02/19/2008, -1/+5Cuban people criticize their government all the time. Just look at the Cuban newspapers, they are filled with meaningful discussion about the future of their country. Also, the Cuban government has never broken up a public protest violently, which is more than I can say about the US.
    • STARTSOMETHING, on 02/19/2008, -7/+2George get the hell off digg!
      • Grindelwald, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1STARTSOMETHING , shut the hell up.
    • ciaran036, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3There's nothing worse than forcing your own way of life on someone else! They can decide for themselves what they think is better for themselves, they don't need or want other people to decide for them or force their so-called democracies on their country. And anyway, the democracies you think you live in aren't really democracies at all! I'm eligible to vote in the UK and I wasn't given the opportunity to vote. Gordon Brown appeared there, completely without my say, or anyone else's in N.Ireland (which is part of the UK).
    • joshuabowers, on 02/19/2008, -0/+1Bay of Pigs 2.0?
  • BeeArePro, on 02/19/2008, -23/+5http://youtube.com/watch?v=EMaovnqU_44
  • Paperfingernail, on 02/19/2008, -24/+178Now that the US no longer has a villainous figurehead to rail against in Castro, why can't we break that embargo now?
    • smacksaw, on 02/19/2008, -11/+77Because there's 11 months and 1 day left before we get rid of Bush, that's why.
    • Albumen, on 02/19/2008, -13/+3We could have, but you used the word "now" twice in that post. You wrecked it for eveyone!!
      ~The Department of Redundancy Department

      sorry, had to be a dick about it..couldn't help myself. Nothin' but love for ya!
      • daxsymbiont, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3it was done at the beginning and end of the sentence; poetic permission.
      • mattmy, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2why did you have to start feeling bad and start apologizing and talking about love....

        ruined it.
    • jeuhrn, on 02/19/2008, -3/+18There's still a Castro, only his name is Raul.
      • CiXeL, on 02/19/2008, -1/+6the cubans need a bad guy or theyd implode.
    • k00k, on 02/19/2008, -11/+64Make sure you dont vote for Clinton or McCain then. Obama is the only one that supports changing anything in our stance with Cuba.
      • ciaran036, on 02/19/2008, -4/+14America shoudn't HAVE a stance against Cuba. Cuba can do whatever the hell they like. If the citizens didn't like it they could easily overpower the government. Like the way we should overpower our governments because our countries are out causing wars and being greedy bastards and we have no say in it!
        • Lionhart, on 02/19/2008, -3/+7The declaration of independence states that the people have the right to overthrow a government that doesn't serve their interests. However if you tried to do that these days you'd be labeled a terrorist, imprisoned in Guantanamo, and tortured. And we call ourselves the Great Society, yet we have become everything we have stood against.
        • mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Excuses, excuses... If things are so bad "Lionhart", you must just be a pussy.
          • ciaran036, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2what? Just because they're shoving non-stop porn, video games and ridiculously pointless TV shows in your face every hour of every day, every week and every year does not mean war isn't happening or that people aren't starving to death and dying of disease all over the world. Just because you're fortunate enough not to be involved does not mean you should just sit back and call people pussies.
      • GhostyBoy, on 02/19/2008, -1/+9Ron Paul! I know, I know....but he has stated that he wants to open up all the trade sanctions, he even said it at this latino debate and they were booing the hell out of him for it.
      • freedomkeeper, on 02/19/2008, -6/+0Yeah, Obama's keen to cozy up to all of our emenies, isn't he? Breakfast with the Castro's, tea time with Kim Jung Il, lunch with the Ayatollah...
    • mempko, on 02/19/2008, -4/+11Embargo and sanctions on countries hurt the people not the government as has been proven by Cuba. If anyone has direct consequence for Cubans suffering (If they really are suffering) is the United States that continues to harm them via embargo. We are bastards.
    • iyeeee, on 02/19/2008, -4/+1There is an embargo with Cuba because they expropriated all of our property when Castro took over. I see no reason why, if Raul starts to help the ailing Cuban people, that we should not lift the embargo. Economic freedom is a step in the right direction and the United States imports are currently at about 2 trillion dollars a year. I'm thinking with a lifted trade embargo we might pump a little money into their economy by greatly increasing their exports. We could also use the nice publicity of a friendly relationship with a foreign country. We're kind of lacking in allies right now.
      • 140Suffolk, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1They get to trade with the rest of the world. The "people" of Cuba don't get any of that money. The government grabs it. And how bout this: You know the movie Sicko? It's banned in Cuba !! Cause they figure that if the Cuban people found out that WE think THEY have health care they would flip out!
  • bestsell, on 02/19/2008, -11/+258Now all he has to do is retire...in Florida.
    • nirav72, on 02/19/2008, -8/+2Then we take him out.
    • CraigReed, on 02/19/2008, -6/+22Why the hell would he do that? He has better free healthcare at home.
      • matthiasgoodman, on 02/19/2008, -10/+2Just because it is free doesn't mean it is better. I imagine he has good health care, but his people don't.
        • Lionhart, on 02/19/2008, -2/+7There's no such thing as "free" healthcare.
      • flazz, on 02/19/2008, -1/+3the joke is because he is CUBAN, get it?
    • Jforsyth89, on 02/19/2008, -2/+6I'm sure all the Cubans who escaped his government and fled to Florida would be delighted that he could join them.
    • d3lta, on 02/19/2008, -0/+6I don't know if he could take the raft ride
    • peestandingup, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3He & Tony Montana could RULE Miami!
      • woohalladoobop, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4And he and Hannah Montana could RULE the stage!
        • peestandingup, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2Can we throw Joe in there for good measure??
    • Shrubber, on 02/19/2008, -0/+2I'd be shocked if he even thinks about going to Florida. Some former Cuban citizen would just assassinate him.
  • pmdones, on 02/19/2008, -17/+10Yes! Now I can go to their country. Now all I need is a sturdy raft.
    • ventralnet, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Or route through canada... but you can take the raft if you like
    • keymanjim2, on 02/19/2008, -1/+1You can fly there if you fly to another country first. You can go by raft, but the current will be against you.
  • tehWhisp, on 02/19/2008, -16/+5Wait... if you listen carefully... I think you can hear the cheers and fist pumps in Washington.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/19/2008, -0/+4Fist Pumps? Arsenio Hall hasn't been on the air since 1994.
  • smurfsahoy, on 02/19/2008, -24/+65The great thing is that the US now has to break the embargo, because they've basically promised they would all along when this happened, but likely nothing at all will change in the country.

    Old, obtuse, thick-headed politicians get screwed out of their ridiculous goals? Or old, obtuse, thick-headed politicians refuse to give in, and receive copious amounts of ridicule, while legitimate, well run socialist countries get a big press boost? It's win-win!
    • Zippo, on 02/19/2008, -5/+16There was never an embargo between Canada and Cuba, thankfully. Us Canadians can still legally visit Cube and smoke their cigars.
      • markgl, on 02/19/2008, -5/+8ohh, call the press.
      • mahdaeng, on 02/19/2008, -0/+3Yeah, because Canadians are always for putting their money where their mouth is.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5If the great nation of Canada doesn't participate in an embargo of Cuba, then why is it still such a ***** down there? Why haven't they been lifted out of poverty and tyranny yet?
    • doktorzee, on 02/19/2008, -0/+8The embargo stands on the US side while Fidel or his brother are in power.
      Plus, Cuba has their own anti-America embargo while Bush is in power. It may be more than that, I'm not sure.
      • megadan76, on 02/19/2008, -1/+2I wonder what impact Prez Obama will have on Cuban relations.
      • CiXeL, on 02/19/2008, -3/+3the embargo is silly. the canadian dollar is on par with us and the euro is almost twice our dollar. cutting off trade between the US and cuba is a joke. theres more money coming in from europeans and canadians than th