Castro

Well, I do have sympathy for Cubans who fled and went to America because they had to leave their homeland and many left relatives behind, never seeing them again.

Castro was by no means perfect but he did ensure good standards for all in relation to the very basics of life - health, housing, education and sustenance
Not quite for all - only as long as they did not dissent or argue with the government.

Can you imagine what would have happened had they marched in protest as people have done in this country?
The Russian guns would have come out of the cupboard and mowed them all down.

Why would you want to argue if with the government if your life was better than it would have been with a different government? This free speech thing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

How about Singapore? It's a democracy - voting is compulsory, but there isn't really much choice and woe betide you if you don't do as the government wants. The consequences aren't so dire as in Cuba - human rights activists describe them as 'misfortunes'.

PS. People have marched in protest, but the government still hasn't done anything.

Seems any dictator is defended if they are communist

Jalima do you really think that ALL the Cubans who left for the USA did so because of political differences and not to benefit themselves economically? The reasons for any immigration are always complex and mixed. Yes there probably were political dissidents in the Cuban immigrants, just as there were refugees in the Calais camps fleeing persecution in their country of origin. To state that one group are fleeing from persecution whilst the other group is simply seeking economic improvement is either naive or deliberately biased.

I am always on my very best behaviour if I go to Singapore, but I wouldn't want to live there.

To state that one group are fleeing from persecution whilst the other group is simply seeking economic improvement is either naive or deliberately biased.

OK, I will clarify my statement - the ones who fled in the first place when Castro took over were in fear for their lives and seeking asylum; later waves of migrants may have fled because of religious persecution; some later ones may have fled for economic reasons but mainly because they were 'traitors to the revolution' and threatened.

It is strange that people were not flooding to Cuba in their thousands and begging to be let in if conditions were so wonderful there.

It's not just posters on here trisher
I think Amnesty International have never been too happy with the regime there either.

But heigh ho, who are they, just some bleeding heart do-gooders.

Cuba became a communist country, not a Socialist one, Corbyn ( for example) would want a Socialist government (though he may be a closet Trot!) Yes ab I too am amazed at the forum members who seem to imagine that Cuba under Castro was admirable, it beggars belief.
Exactly Jalima The people who took their chances and managed to escape were in no way comparable to economic migrants at Calais.

The fact that the UK ( ( amongst other countries no doubt) is unwilling to send anybody of note to Cuba for the funeral, says it all.

corbyn is no socialist, he is a trot /communist, socialism is not communism

Well, they could send Boris as he could put both feet in quite nicely.

Thanks for the link, Jalima. It's still Castro's Cuba, isn't it, just a different Castro.
Do you think Trump has people over there already trying to sort out casinos?

It makes me laugh that the very left wing Gransnet members defend Castro simply because his policies were Communist inspired, even though he was a terrible tyrant when they would be up in arms if a similar dictator who happened to be very right wing
Was being admired on here.How grown up is that? ( answer...not at all) all dictators become monsters along the way.

I know ab but Corbyn and pals would call themselves Socialists, even if we think they are Trots in Socialist clothing.

dd you say ' this free speech thing isn't all it's cracked up to be' ..... even with a wink added, that is a crackpot statement.

All these aplogists for a dictator and his awful regime have got me thinking that perhaps they just enjoy confrontation on a forum so will say that black is white.Hey ho as bags would say.

"On balance Chairman Mao did more good than harm" Diane Abbott. When millions have been murdered, starved, tortured, subjugated, the political thrust of dictators' regimes cease to matter. There isn't really a lot to choose between the far left or the far right when an authoritarian rule is imposed which shuts down free speech and any form of dissent. High ideals are abandoned for "the cause" and maintaining a stranglehold at all costs. Rationality and history make most of us aware that extremes of either right or left dictatorships are atrocious for the people who have to live under them and thankfully appear doomed to fail.

Rosesarered ?

I asked what I had posted that you considered untrue roses I see you haven't replied. If you were to ask the people of Venezuela, Algeria, Haiti or any of the other paces that have benefited over the years from the Cuban Medical missions what they think of Cuba you would probably get some very different opinions. I know people who saw the work of the Cubans in Haiti in 2010 and they were full of admiration. Yes politically and as far as human rights are concerned the regime was dreadful, but the good it has done in the region cannot be dismissed. It isn't approving of a political system to admit some things have worked well, after all even Mussolini is said to have made the trains run on time.
Incidentally why do you think the US was so against Cuba? Nothing to do with dictators or human rights they have quite a few 'friends' of that ilk, The fear was that by providing the care and support they did the Cuban model might begin to sow the seeds of revolution in other countries in the area.

I didn't say that you had trotted out untruths trisher but what you have been doing in your comments is being an apologist for a Communist dictator who ordered terrible crimes and suppressed his people ( presumably because he was Communist and that makes things better.)Had he been a Facist dictator, you would not be looking for reasons to excuse.

All dictators and tyrants are bad for their countries.

Pinochet did a lot of good for Chile, especially the economy.

Developments were very positive with regards to infant mortality and life expectancy—infant mortality rate fell so much that Chile achieved the lowest level of infant mortality in Latin America in the 1980s. Infant mortality rate in Chile fell from 76.1 per 1000 to 22.6 per 1000 from 1970 to 1985. In 1988, the military government passed a law making all abortion illegal, and the law remains in place today.

Milton Friedman has wondered why some have attacked him for giving a lecture in Chile: “I must say, it’s such a wonderful example of a double standard, because I had spent time in Yugoslavia, which was a communist country. I later gave a series of lectures in China. When I came back from communist China, I wrote a letter to the Stanford Daily newspaper in which I said, 'It's curious. I gave exactly the same lectures in China that I gave in Chile.

However,this improvement was not because of “free-market” policies but because of active public and state intervention. Chile had a very long tradition of public action for the improvement of childcare, which were largely maintained after the Pinochet coup:

Cuban medical teams went to Chile to help with humanitarian work.

Pity he hadn't paid attention to fsmily planning , if only for himself