Something has gotten into Castro. It's almost like a Manchurian candidate. He's taken some counter positions here lately. I've been surprised.
(09-09-2010 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Something has gotten into Castro. It's almost like a Manchurian candidate. He's taken some counter positions here lately. I've been surprised.
Oh, because he doesn't think Communism works in Cuba? Is that why something has "gotten into him", I.e. something must be wrong? Afterall, what the f--- does he know. He's only there. Maybe you libs need to take a trip to Cuba to tell him just how good Marxism is. Obviously he doesn't seem to get it.
The reason Castro thinks that communism doesn't work is because communism doesn't work. If only he can explain that to Obama.
Sean Penn must be fuming this morning. Hope he doesn't punch someone.
The guy has comitted his whole life to a cause. It just surprises me at the end he calls for change. Surprising is the word.
(09-09-2010 09:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]The guy has comitted his whole life to a cause. It just surprises me at the end he calls for change. Surprising is the word.
Maybe, unlike American liberals, he realizes that if something hasn't worked in 50 f'n years, it's just not going to work.
BTW, only cause Castro worked for was the Castro cause.
Quote:Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg "it wasn't worth it at all."
This is something that really gets lost on all the coffeeshop Castro apologists over the years. Not to mention Che, who adorns the t-shirt of many middle to upper class college kids, was constantly persuading Castro to launch them as well, and that both the US and Cuba destroyed would be worth it in the name of socialism.
Even Nikita Khrushchev realized what kooks he had to deal with in Havana, and was probably a big reason why he decided to pull back on the plan.
Cuba may never become a full-fledged westernized/capitalist country, but even a scandinavian-style leftwing government would be 1000x better than the totalitarianism performed their now. I'm not entirely sure what to make of Castro's semi-sane remarks in that interview, other than to make life a little easier for his brother who might be contemplating some changes.
(09-09-2010 09:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]The guy has comitted his whole life to a cause. It just surprises me at the end he calls for change. Surprising is the word.
See, I don't think he was really committed to any cause beyond liberating Cuba from the likes of Batista. We would not help him do that, the USSR would, so he became a communist. Maybe it takes someone who is old enough to have been reading during the 1950s to understand that.
If we had only supported him when he was living in the wilds of Oriente province, we would have had far fewer problems the last 50 years.
I don't think Castro was an ideologue, except if he had to be. He was a pragmatist, and that's the way the wind was blowing for him. Now he is older and more reflective, and he's coming up with a different answer. Of course, maybe his Russian benefactors are not providing as much as they once did, and the pragmatist sense that there may be an advantage to moving a bit.
(09-09-2010 09:20 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not entirely sure what to make of Castro's semi-sane remarks in that interview, other than to make life a little easier for his brother who might be contemplating some changes.
Score. There is no reason to make anything else of it.
(09-09-2010 09:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-09-2010 09:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]The guy has comitted his whole life to a cause. It just surprises me at the end he calls for change. Surprising is the word.
See, I don't think he was really committed to any cause beyond liberating Cuba from the likes of Batista. We would not help him do that, the USSR would, so he became a communist. Maybe it takes someone who is old enough to have been reading during the 1950s to understand that.
If we had only supported him when he was living in the wilds of Oriente province, we would have had far fewer problems the last 50 years.
Why should we have supported him against Batista?
Seems the US loses either way. We don't get involved, we get trouble. We do get involved, we get trouble.
On the whole though, maybe getting involved w/ a country 90 mi away makes more sense than those that are thousands of miles away.
(09-09-2010 08:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: [ -> ]Something has gotten into Castro. It's almost like a Manchurian candidate. He's taken some counter positions here lately. I've been surprised.
He liked communism because it kept him in power. The guy is pretty sharp, so I'm sure he saw what it did to his country, but as long as it kept him in power, he didn't care.
Castro knows the Cuban model failed and is looking to be the one that gets credit for reform. He does not want to die and have Cubans regard him in a bad light. He has always been an arrogant prick that relished the spotlight and adoration of his people. That has not changed. What has changed..is the people. They seek freedom. He is either going to give it to them while alive...or they will get it when he is dead. He is choosing to be the hero of the people again..before he dies.
(09-09-2010 09:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]See, I don't think he was really committed to any cause beyond liberating Cuba from the likes of Batista. We would not help him do that, the USSR would, so he became a communist. Maybe it takes someone who is old enough to have been reading during the 1950s to understand that.
If we had only supported him when he was living in the wilds of Oriente province, we would have had far fewer problems the last 50 years.
I don't think Castro was an ideologue, except if he had to be. He was a pragmatist, and that's the way the wind was blowing for him. Now he is older and more reflective, and he's coming up with a different answer. Of course, maybe his Russian benefactors are not providing as much as they once did, and the pragmatist sense that there may be an advantage to moving a bit.
I wonder if this isn't true for other revolutionaries as well, like the ANC in South Africa or even possibly the Viet Kong. Did they start off as communists (if I remember correctly the ANC was more overtly communistic during their revolutionary days) or did they become communists because only the communists would support them?
(09-09-2010 09:16 AM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, only cause Castro worked for was the Castro cause.
Big shock, a man calls on an oppressed people to rise up and rally to him as he guides them to the promised land of shared prosperity, and remove the privileged elite from their seats of power. Where have I seen this before? My head has a few names running through it: Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Hitler, Napoleon, Lenin, etc.
Let the backpedaling begin...
Quote:Castro says he was misinterpreted on Cuban economy
HAVANA — Fidel Castro says his comments about Cuba's communist economic model were misinterpreted by a visiting American journalist.
Appearing at the University of Havana on Friday, the 84-year-old ex-president says he meant "exactly the opposite" of the quote contained in a blog by Atlantic magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote Wednesday that he asked Castro if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries. He said that Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-wor...el.Castro/
So, either the journalist really did misinterpret a quote, or some Communist Party bigwigs decided to 'convince' Old Man Castro to backpedal his comments.
Although, as many have noted here, that quote does seem out of character for El Jefe.
(09-10-2010 03:56 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]Let the backpedaling begin...
Quote:Castro says he was misinterpreted on Cuban economy
HAVANA — Fidel Castro says his comments about Cuba's communist economic model were misinterpreted by a visiting American journalist.
Appearing at the University of Havana on Friday, the 84-year-old ex-president says he meant "exactly the opposite" of the quote contained in a blog by Atlantic magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote Wednesday that he asked Castro if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries. He said that Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-wor...el.Castro/
So, either the journalist really did misinterpret a quote, or some Communist Party bigwigs decided to 'convince' Old Man Castro to backpedal his comments.
Although, as many have noted here, that quote does seem out of character for El Jefe.
Goldberg would not risk his reputation on this. Maybe Castro let his mouth run ahead of his old brain or was confused but... I do not believe he was misquoted.