Which of these dictators did more good than bad?

[DinoDoc]

I wish some of you right-wingers out there would realize that I don't love Castro, don't think that his form of government is ideal and don't think it is better than a fully-functioning democracy.

Why are you argueing against something I never said? I was merely questioning the notion that the US embargo is what keeps Cuba poor considering the fact that Europe and Canada don't honor it and trade with Cuba freely. I'm told that they even find it quite beautiful vacation spot.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Please, I think we all can agree that there are some points in history when democratic rule just won't survive.

It won't survive when people simply choose not to fight for it. It wouldn't survive here in the US if people didn't fight for it. We are beginning to find that out right now. Foreigners can be dangerous but your fellow countrymen are just as eager to take your rights away as someone abroad.

I find it as difficult to choose here as anyone but I can see a point where a leader can responibly decide that strong leadership is a necessary evil. The only problem is few of them can ever see when that period is over.

It's not a few of them. That's the whole problem. Strong leadership is one thing, but when you cross the line all the logic in the world doesn't matter because you just did more harm than any outsider could. When a man sets himself up as the sole definer of what is good and bad for the country than he has crossed the line. NOTHING good comes from that. You talk of reason, but history is littered with men who thought they were reasonable. I'll not trust my future soley on the reason of one man thank you very much. If you want to, then be my guest.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Sprayber
It won't survive when people simply choose not to fight for it. It wouldn't survive here in the US if people didn't fight for it. We are beginning to find that out right now. Foreigners can be dangerous but your fellow countrymen are just as eager to take your rights away as someone abroad.

It's not a few of them. That's the whole problem. Strong leadership is one thing, but when you cross the line all the logic in the world doesn't matter because you just did more harm than any outsider could. When a man sets himself up as the sole definer of what is good and bad for the country than he has crossed the line. NOTHING good comes from that. You talk of reason, but history is littered with men who thought they were reasonable. I'll not trust my future soley on the reason of one man thank you very much. If you want to, then be my guest.

Democracy is certainly not a natural conclusion to many people. Where it has worked well there is usually a good amount of prosperity and stability and it usually has more to do with there being people with money and power willing to fight for freedom(or at least democracy ) or at least fund it.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Felch X
Franco did an excellent job of protecting Spanish Jews from Hitler. And Pinochet dealt with the leftists in Chile, and had the decency to resign and allow the peaceful transition to democracy. Those two are the only dictators on the list I can say did more good than harm.

Pinochet dealt with those damned elected leftists huh? Breaking the laws of a democratic government because he was unsatisfied with who was elected is doing more good then harm?

The stupid thing is he could have just waited. He had enough US and corporate support to buy the next election.

[monkspider]

Castro definitely, thanks to him Cuba now has the highest standard of living of any third world country. I also voted for VI Lenin.

[Gangerolf]

how do you define third world country?
I mean, the standard of living in Cuba is ****e..
they've a good education system though.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I wish some of you right-wingers out there would realize that I don't love Castro, don't think that his form of government is ideal and don't think it is better than a fully-functioning democracy.

Why are you argueing against something I never said? I was merely questioning the notion that the US embargo is what keeps Cuba poor considering the fact that Europe and Canada don't honor it and trade with Cuba freely. I'm told that they even find it quite beautiful vacation spot.

I'm sorry, I didn't see where I typed your name when I said "some of you right-wingers". My mistake....

As for the poverty, if it needs to be spelled out, fine. First, I said that it wouldn't make Cuba a rich country, so don't try to use that argument. Second, although other countries do not recognize the embargo, the US does put pressure on and sanctions those companies that do business in Cuba. Does that stop trade? Of course not. Does it limit somewhat? Probably. Third, who do you think would be Cuba's natural largest trading partner/source of income? In case it's not obvious enough, it's the US. Mybe as an example, let's take Malta, who the US trades freely with. If all of Europe put an embargo on Malta, but the US still traded freely with it, do you think that as much money would flow in? And you're right, it is a beautiful vacation spot that Americans would flock to if they could. Adding that to the Canadians and European who already go there would have a huge impact on the amount of tourist dollars spent. Not to mention that the limited resources Cuba has, namely sugar, would find a much easier market in the US than the rest of the world.

[Felch]

Originally posted by monkspider
the highest standard of living of any third world country.

Funniest phrase ever.

Not to be pedantic, but Casto's Cuba isn't third world. Third world means the country wasn't aligned with either the free market West nor the socialist East. Since Castro was clearly an ally of the Soviet Union when it existed, Cuba was a second world country.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
how do you define third world country?
I mean, the standard of living in Cuba is ****e..
they've a good education system though.

Yea they can all read all the propoganda that they want, as many times as they want.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I was merely questioning the notion that the US embargo is what keeps Cuba poor considering the fact that Europe and Canada don't honor it and trade with Cuba freely. I'm told that they even find it quite beautiful vacation spot.

It costs more to import and export to Canada and Europe than it would to Miami. Therefore money that could be used for other things is going to shipping expenses.

Cuba would still be poor, however. They have nothing to offer the world except sugar (which is plentiful), some nickle (which is being mined by Canada), and as a tourist spot, and American money would flood in the moment it became legal.

It's true, the living standard in Cuba isn't very good from a consumer standpoint. Then again, it isn't very good in Puerto Rico, which is a part of the US, so what's their excuse?

[Saint Marcus]

Gaddafi did more good then bad. He came to power without bloodshed, and transformed his country from one of the poorest nations on earth, to the third richest nation in Africa.

[Buck Birdseed]

I guess Tito wasn't too bad either, considering what came after him.

[GePap]

It's sad to see such an interesting question devolve to the ususal right/left debate.

I find it impossible to judge between these men as equals. HItler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao are great men. They did incredible, historical things: Both Awesome and Awefull. Men like Catro, Pinochet did important things, not great things, and a man like Mobutu did nothing of importance at all.

Of the great men, I voted for Lenin and Mao. They took their respective states and launched them into a new eras. In the process millions died, yes, but can we say that Russia and China would have been better off without them? Based on what exactly? At least for China the previous 100 years were a disaster. It was under Mao that strong, imperial government returned. It is not easy to rule a nation as big as the US, with 5 times as many people, with 4000 years of history. And Lenin did bring about a new system to Russia. I do not blame him for what Stalin did: had trotsky been a better politician, the time of Stalin might have been averted.
As for Stalin and Hitler: their legacies were shattered, they left little behind but regrets. So they can hardly be said that the scales come out positive for them.


Of the smaller men: I voted for Castro and Pinochet. Castro's Cuba is poor and undemocratic, but it has certainly fared better than most Carribean and Central American states over the past 50 years, avoiding much of the violence that could and probably would have engulfed that island, and he has left a foundation of a strong educated populace, so once his rule ends (and with him the rule of the party) Cuba will be able to jump ahead places like the D.R. Jamaica, and most of Central America.
As for Pinochet: he didn't do enough evil to counterbalance what improvements happened under his rule. Killing 3000 people is terrible, but the Argentines next door killed even more, and still managued to take what was a rich state and bring it to where it is.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's true, the living standard in Cuba isn't very good from a consumer standpoint. Then again, it isn't very good in Puerto Rico, which is a part of the US, so what's their excuse?

Obviously its the US embargo that keeps them so poor.

[Bereta_Eder]

Fidel Castro. The rest of Latin America is in much worse trouble than Cuba is.

The most oddball of all was Hoza of Albania. His coutnry had no official relations with any other country in the world except... China. Albania was a secluded island with no connections to anyone.