The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[horseplayer]

I read the CIA tried to kill him over 600 times

They are not too accurate then?

Probably not a nice guy but I have respect for him not just accepting the position of being Americas lacky

[kukushkin88]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I don't need charity in a discussion on this topic. We're lucky to live in an enlightened time, when we can see how ridiculous their position on homosexuality was, they were incredibly ignorant, so were the majority worldwide at that time. It changes nothing in a battle against the oppression of many millions. You have The Donald on side though, that must be reassuring.

[DaveShoelace]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I don't need charity in a discussion on this topic. We're lucky to live in an enlightened time, when we can see how ridiculous their position on homosexuality was, they were incredibly ignorant, so were the majority worldwide at that time. It changes nothing in a battle against the oppression of many millions. You have The Donald on side though, that must be reassuring.

We are lucky to live in an enlightened time, the people of Cuba sadly do not, as having the Internet in their homes is illegal. One of the many freedoms they do not enjoy in Castro's utopia.

As awful as I think Trump is, the fact he has not murdered any dissidents (yet) does put him (currently) ahead of an actual mass murdering tyrant. Time might change that of course, but not really an argument.

[horseplayer]

A surprisingly balanced view from the states

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117186483.html

[horseplayer]

Amazingly even for the ever increasingly appalling BBC they interviewed Richard gott about Castro even hailing him a Cuba expert.

Used to be a kgb agent!

[Jon MW]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I can understand the point that to overthrow an imperialistic overlord (whether actually imperial - like the European colonies in South America; or commercially imperial like the US in Cuba) you might sometimes blur the boundaries between good and evil or terrorism and freedom fighter; the issue people have are that, "Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war", doesn't really apply to most of the people he had killed - they weren't at war with each other. They were his own citizens.

[PokerBroker]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I can understand the point that to overthrow an imperialistic overlord (whether actually imperial - like the European colonies in South America; or commercially imperial like the US in Cuba) you might sometimes blur the boundaries between good and evil or terrorism and freedom fighter; the issue people have are that, "Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war", doesn't really apply to most of the people he had killed - they weren't at war with each other. They were his own citizens.

Not so different to the British in Ireland.

Or the likes of Pinochet who Thatcher was chummy with.

[Jon MW]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I can understand the point that to overthrow an imperialistic overlord (whether actually imperial - like the European colonies in South America; or commercially imperial like the US in Cuba) you might sometimes blur the boundaries between good and evil or terrorism and freedom fighter; the issue people have are that, "Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war", doesn't really apply to most of the people he had killed - they weren't at war with each other. They were his own citizens.

Not so different to the British in Ireland.

Or the likes of Pinochet who Thatcher was chummy with.

Yes, apart from scope and scale, they're all the same. Along with others they are all examples of human rights violations against their own citizens.

So that would suggest you agree - he was a bad man.

[PokerBroker]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I can understand the point that to overthrow an imperialistic overlord (whether actually imperial - like the European colonies in South America; or commercially imperial like the US in Cuba) you might sometimes blur the boundaries between good and evil or terrorism and freedom fighter; the issue people have are that, "Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war", doesn't really apply to most of the people he had killed - they weren't at war with each other. They were his own citizens.

Not so different to the British in Ireland.

Or the likes of Pinochet who Thatcher was chummy with.

Yes, apart from scope and scale, they're all the same. Along with others they are all examples of human rights violations against their own citizens.

So that would suggest you agree - he was a bad man.

I don't, Castro was a revolutionary and as leaders go I think he was a great man. 

He provided for all his people not just the rich and the elites.  Of course there are things he done that can never be squared but overall I think history will show him to have been an inspiration to millions.

[DaveShoelace]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I can understand the point that to overthrow an imperialistic overlord (whether actually imperial - like the European colonies in South America; or commercially imperial like the US in Cuba) you might sometimes blur the boundaries between good and evil or terrorism and freedom fighter; the issue people have are that, "Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war", doesn't really apply to most of the people he had killed - they weren't at war with each other. They were his own citizens.

Not so different to the British in Ireland.

Or the likes of Pinochet who Thatcher was chummy with.

Yes, apart from scope and scale, they're all the same. Along with others they are all examples of human rights violations against their own citizens.

So that would suggest you agree - he was a bad man.

I don't, Castro was a revolutionary and as leaders go I think he was a great man.  

He provided for all his people not just the rich and the elites.  Of course there are things he done that can never be squared but overall I think history will show him to have been an inspiration to millions.

He didn't provide for all his people, he just evened out the poverty. The conditions in Cuba are horrific, so much so that hundreds of thousands have risked their live fleeing. 20% of Cubans are estimated to have tried to leave. They are not allowed the Internet in their homes. They have the best adult literacy in the world, but many books are banned.

With respect, I always find it laughable when people in comparatively free societies romanticise communism, because one group of people who rarely speak highly of it are the poor sods who have lived in communist regimes. The fact that they almost always have to use force to stop people leaving says it all.  

This is an interesting brief take from somebody whose family fled Cuba (the video):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cuban-american-journalists-warn-against-romanticizing-fidel-castro_us_5839b38fe4b000af95ee51ab

This is a horrifying portrait of life in Cuba - I have no doubt that its overly biased - but worth a look (avoid the healthcare section if you are easily upset):

http://www.therealcuba.com/

[Jon MW]

That's overly simplistic, in an ideal world you'd be right. In this world, everything was stacked against them and they decided their cause was worth killing for, not a decision intelligent human beings take lightly.

Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war and this is no exception but it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys.

I cannot fundamentally even begin to defend the idea that 'they decided their cause was worth killing for'. I can defend even quite creative interpretations of killing in self defence, of which I am sure Castro was doing in part, but killing ones own people for dissent is never justified.

I'll be charitable and say it's not black and white and he had good intentions at times, but come on, 'it's hard to argue that Fidel/Che are the bad guys' - almost starting nuclear war, treatment of gays? By all means stick with your position, but you have to admit there is an argument to be made that they were bad?

I can understand the point that to overthrow an imperialistic overlord (whether actually imperial - like the European colonies in South America; or commercially imperial like the US in Cuba) you might sometimes blur the boundaries between good and evil or terrorism and freedom fighter; the issue people have are that, "Not often right and wrong is clear cut in war", doesn't really apply to most of the people he had killed - they weren't at war with each other. They were his own citizens.

Not so different to the British in Ireland.

Or the likes of Pinochet who Thatcher was chummy with.

Yes, apart from scope and scale, they're all the same. Along with others they are all examples of human rights violations against their own citizens.

So that would suggest you agree - he was a bad man.

I don't, Castro was a revolutionary and as leaders go I think he was a great man.  

He provided for all his people not just the rich and the elites.  Of course there are things he done that can never be squared but overall I think history will show him to have been an inspiration to millions.

As a revolutionary he was a great leader - he freed his country from the oppressive commercialism and criminal influence that the previous dictators of the island had encouraged.

But he hasn't been a revolutionary for most of his life. He's been the establishment.

He promised free elections and a Cuban system of government while he was leading an uprising - but then said he was a Marxist, signed up to be a Soviet satellite and settled down as a tyrant when his followers lead him to victory. He may have done a better job at creating an equal society than most communist countries in history managed - but that basically meant the Party members in mansions and everyone else in slums instead of Party leaders in palaces and everyone else in hovels.

Without the Soviet subsidy it's been pretty obvious that he hasn't been able to provide for anyone much at all though. The only way Cuba is to get any kind of progress away from it's current state is by undoing almost everything Castro did. Some of that is objectively good - like encouraging smaller businesses and fostering an entrepreneurial spirit; some of it is not so good like encouraging the sex tourism industry. But either way leads to the same conclusion - the only way to save Cuba is to delete Castro's influence from it. A great revolutionary - but not a great President.

[nirvana]

I love the Gove

[RED-DOG]

I love the Gove

Quasi-maverick.

[TightEnd]

Chance of 'orderly' Brexit within 2 years below 50% - Lord Kerr, UK's former EU negotiator, on run-up to the talks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/27/chance-orderly-brexit-within-two-years-less-than-50-percent-lord-kerr?CMP=share_btn_tw

[TightEnd]

Paul Nuttall to replace Nigel Farage as new leader of Ukip, party announces

Click to see full-size image.

his strategy is to go after Labour northern seats. he himself is a Liverpudlian