riothero

She looks like a nice girl. If this picture "provokes indignation" on the part of Chavez opponents, it really makes you wonder about them (I'm sure they enjoy posing with money too). Leave ~~Britney~~ Rosinés Chávez alone!

Chavez opponents will take any opportunity to spout their deception. The photo, of course, proves nothing.

Don't you think it's odd that a 'nationalist' country is so strongly pushing for Latin American integration? Simon Bolivar sought to unite the continent against the colonial aggressors. Hm, wasn't the U.S. founded the same way?

You're obviously part of the conspiracy! lol

That's your right. BTW, I did a google search of my own and found [this excellent post](http://www.paperstreetbrigade.com/blog/?p=24821). > the idea that Che was some sort of homicidal maniac who killed people on a whim is rather amusing because it ignores conditions in Cuba at the time of the revolution. >Fulgencio Batista not only had the support of the US, but he had been repressing the country for years. It is widely believed that Batista and his men killed 20,000 Cubans during his final reign. Yet this is never quoted anywhere. Meanwhile [Che’s list of verified executions](http://cubaarchive.org/home/images/stories/truth%20and%20memory/victims_of_che_guevara_in_cuba_9.30.2009.pdf) is around 200. Even if in the end he had a hand in the death of a possible 1,000 people, it’s still 1/20th of what Batista did during his reign on Cuba. >Look, it’s a sad fact of life that [Revolutions] cause a lot of casualties. When you are replacing one regime with another there are going to be some broken eggs. Is Che a saint? No, but who is? Morals are an interesting shade of grey, especially when it comes to overthrowing a dictator who is willing to kill so many of his own people. I’m sure George Washington had people executed during the revolutionary war. For that matter there were many men who were executed for leaving both armies during the American Civil War. >In a vacuum, yes, Che’s crimes are reprehensible. But the reality is that this isn’t a vacuum. If Che had been a renowned liberal democrat, trying to spread democracy in the Carribean, would this be brought up? Most likely not. Most Americans for that matter don’t even realize how many brutal dictators the United States supported in Latin America and South America who would kill their own citizens by the thousands.

I'm reminded of something I came across [reading Slavoj Zizek](http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/zizek.htm). > with regard to freedom, Lenin is best remembered for his famous retort “Freedom yes, but for WHOM? To do WHAT?” — for him, in the case of the Mensheviks..., their “freedom” to criticize the Bolshevik government effectively amounted to “freedom” to undermine the workers’ and peasants’ government on behalf of the counter-revolution In Libya, Gadaffi reasoned that he had to rule the country with an iron fist to secure an order in which to implement good social and economic policies; it's easy to say these policies "should have been carried out democratically", but who's to say that it would have been possible to do that in the real world? (In an ideal world it might be possible to have **BOTH** (1) GOOD POLICIES **AND** (2) DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES. But we aren't living in an ideal world. What if the only choice was between (A) *good policies without democracy* or (B) neither good policies nor democracy?) It's far more likely that the actual choice in Libya was between Gaddafi's rule, which came with numerous benefits to the population as pointed out above, and far worse forms of rule along the lines found in neighboring countries. I'm not disputing the brutalities of life under Gaddafi, and I'm not saying that Libyans should not have aspired to create a better government, but Gaddafi was nearing retirement and his son Saif al-Islam openly discussed reform. It seems to me that there already existed a far more stable path to democracy than the one founded upon a bloody Western intervention that is, unfortunately, more likely to lead to ongoing civil war and bloodshed.

Castro has taken decisive action to defend his country from those traitors bought by the CIA who've aided the US in its effort to reassert control over the island and return it to colonial rule. Were some people imprisoned for advocating the overthrow of the government? You betcha! But try doing that in the United States, and see where that'll get you. A cell in Guantanamo probably! There is no truth to the charge that Castro has committed "mass murders of his political rivals". This is complete fantasy: did it come from some right-wing source or did you pull it out your ass?

Who the hell is giving Castro a 'pass'? The most that anyone is arguing is that Castro has done *some* redeeming stuff and, as the leader of the Cuba revolution, he remains a heroic figure to many around the world. There is no question that his revolution involved bloodshed. But given the real threat of invasion and armed attack (not to mention assassination) by the world's largest superpower, which happened to live right next door, it was not easy for Castro to secure the defense of his revolution, and much of his actions were justified. I don't believe there have been "untold numbers" of suffering, or "actual crimes against humanity" in Cuba, but I'm certain that whatever misery that has existed under Castro would have been far worse had the U.S. succeeded in reasserting control over the country and put it back in the hands of Batista and the mafia. As for the persecution of homosexuals, [Castro has taken responsibility and expressed his remorse](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11147157). Given that it is unheard of for leaders in the U.S. to take responsibility, this alone makes Castro stand out as a leader.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, your analogy is really helpful! But it leads me to ask, is the hatred you describe truly 'personal' in the sense that it is directed towards Castro alone so that, after he dies, your father may feel comfortable returning to the country, even if Cuba remains committed to socialism in some form or another? Or do you think that the hatred is wider in the sense that it extends to the whole country and its population (as expressed in the sentiment "let the whole place rot 'til they give up") such that only an armed uprising and/or invasion like the Bay of Pigs (that buries its socialist past) could redeem the country in the eyes of these Cuban exiles?

Sorry, but the reason this stuck with you is probably because it conforms to your conservative narrative about the trouble with government 'handouts'. Trust me, Libyans did not rise up in protest against government handouts!