Talk:Fidel Castro

About infant mortality, my source refutes: Cuba’s comparative world ranking according to data in Table 1 has fallen from 13th to last out of the 25 countries examined. Also missing from the conventional analysis of Cuba's infant mortality rates is its staggering abortion rate of 77.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 1996[8] -- which, because of selective termination of "high-risk" pregnancies, yields lower numbers for infant mortality. Cuba's abortion rate was the 3rd highest out of the 60 countries studied. Kapil 01:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Kapil, what reference is that passage from? The WHO is an authoritative source, and this is a 2005 report. CIA World Factbook says 6.6/1000 (immediately followed by Taiwan at 6.40 and the U.S. at 6.50), that's ten-fold the 60/1000 in 1959, and ten-fold is a lot (double is a lot), all these contributing factors, which I was not fully aware of —thanks for that— (nor do I discount) overall notwithstanding. El_C 02:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see above you added that this is a U.S. State Dept. source. Far from discounting it offhand, they do of course exhibit the strongest anti-Cuban bias, more so than any other country on the planet. I would tend to see a, let say a study by the, Canadian or Japanese or Spanish, etc. govts., or the WHO, as more detached — as neither enemies nor allies. El_C 03:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've done all this. Literacy doesn't just improve itself. It makes no difference that it's a "regional trend". It's not that there was something in the latinoamericano water! What you fail to understand is that Castro is not being singled out for his achievement. This article is about him, not about comparative Latin leaders! Because of your bias, you simply cannot see that. Cuba's improvements came from a relatively high base -- nowhere is this disputed. But it compares favourably with other high-base nations, as Trey Stone showed with his statistics.

And it's a misuse of statistics to quibble that countries with very poor literacy had much bigger improvements in percentage terms: if populations are the same, 1% to 3% is the same increase in terms of people who were not literate who now are as 95% to 97%, but it is obviously a much bigger percentage increase. This is absolutely elementary stuff. You are not comparing like with like.

As for infant mortality, it's of less account than you are suggesting that there are lots of abortions. Your argument seems to suggest that countries with high mortality rates are simply seeing nonviable children die. This is not generally the case (as you could easily ascertain by considering whether countries with high infant mortality lose most or even many of their infants to at-birth defects), nor is it necessarily true that no fetuses are terminated that would not, on completion of gestion, have been viable. You should note that "high-risk" pregnancies are of a high risk for a reason! It shouldn't be a surprise that they make a majority of terminations, given that the thing they are at risk of is something being wrong. Grace Note 02:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as we have pointed out, other countries have made similar gains without command economic structures... the point is that there are different factors in increasing literacy. the fact that Cuba has a literacy rate, say, two points higher than that of Paraguay does not negate this J. Parker Stone 19:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to quote myself: As it stands, the Cuban increases in these indicators is nothing more than part of a regional trend, though you don't see pages on Colombian or Argentinian presidents mentioning "great" increases or "availability of universal healthcare", and their inclusion in the biography of Fidel Castro (above political repression) would make believe that this was a great, unique accomplishment when data displays this is not the case. Also, note that the data is mostly UN, which would contradict claims of US government bias or misinformation. "This improvement is impressive, but not unique, among Latin American countries." - This should be included, or the whole "great increase" should be dropped. My main problem with the categorization of "great" is that it perpetuates the stereotype that the Castro government not only increased literacy and health care, but did this in historically great levels. My source clearly states this isn't so, both because other Latin American nations did (so it should be mentioned that the increases are in no way unique nor grander than the increases made in other countries in the region) and that because of this fact, comparatively, the increase really doesn't represent a trend change between Cuba pre-revolutionary times and communist times. This fact should be mentioned, once again, because it is general belief that the increases in literacy and healthcare were both immense and unique, when this clearly wasn't the case. Yes, the percentage increases were "great", but so were every other countries' (in some cases even greater), and it's a fact that should be pointed out so people don't think it's the specific case of being communist that allowed cubans to have a high literacy rate and levels of healthcare. Kapil 05:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Systematic repression of all [political] opposition

I wouldn't object removing the term "political" from this phrase. Here's my source: It is no exaggeration to state that during the 1950's, the Cuban people were among the most informed in the world, living in an uncharacteristically large media market for such a small country. Cubans had a choice of 58 daily newspapers during the late 1950's, according to the UN statistical yearbook. Despite its small size, this placed Cuba behind only Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in the region. By 1992, government controls had reduced the number of dailies to only 17.

There has also been a reduction in the number of radio and television broadcasting stations, although the UN no longer reports these statistics. However, it should be noted that in 1957, Cuba had more television stations (23) than any other country in Latin America, easily outdistancing larger countries such as Mexico (12 television stations) and Venezuela (10). It also led Latin America and ranked eighth in the world in number of radio stations (160), ahead of such countries as Austria (83 radio stations), United Kingdom (62), and France (50), according to the UN statistical yearbook.

This goes to show that whereas discussion and debate in pre-revolutionary times were among the most informed in the world, now people have to read government controlled papers (ever taken a look at the Granma? They even pick ugly photos of Castro's enemies, kinda like what anncol.org does) and the like. It's not far out to define Cuba's attitude towards plurality as "the systematic repression of all perceived opposition".

Also, to note:
Dozens of small, illegal opposition groups exist in Cuba, but have no access to the media, cannot hold public meetings and do not threaten the Communist Party's political dominance.

The internal dissident movement is generally perceived by analysts and diplomats here as relatively weak, marginalized and handicapped by both internal divisions and state control.

Cuba's four best-known dissident prisoners - Martha Beatriz Roque, Vladimiro Roca, Felix Bonne and Rene Gomez Manzano - remain in jail without trial since July 1997. [6] (http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/protestaarresto82898.html)

The most decisive of all in my case for using this sentence is the following, from Human Rights Watch:
Over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban law. In the name of legality, armed security forces, aided by state-controlled mass organizations, silence dissent with heavy prison terms, threats of prosecution, harassment, or exile. Cuba uses these tools to restrict severely the exercise of fundamental human rights of expression, association, and assembly. The conditions in Cuba's prisons are inhuman, and political prisoners suffer additional degrading treatment and torture. In recent years, Cuba has added new repressive laws and continued prosecuting nonviolent dissidents while shrugging off international appeals for reform and placating visiting dignitaries with occasional releases of political prisoners. To note: over the past forty years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression and Cuba has added new repressive laws. This clearly states repression, systematic repression. [7] (http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-01.htm#P355_13934)

Finally, a jewel:
The goal of the Castro regime has been to "fuse state and society."36 The two principal, overlapping instruments are the PCC, which "rules over every level of Cuban life,"37 and the Ministry of Interior (MININT). The MININT contains within it a vast, nationwide surveillance and repressive apparatus to keep the population in line. The principal departments in the MININT for exercising political and social control are the Departamento de Seguridad del Estado (DSE), Department of State Security, commonly referred to simply as "State Security," and the Departamento Técnico de Investigaciones (DTI), Department of Technical Investigations. The headquarters of State Security is housed in a former seminary in the Havana section of Villa Marista and is often referred to simply as "Villa Marista." Through the use of electronic surveillance, undercover agents and a widespread network of informants who are often coerced or blackmailed, MININT has the capability and the mandate to spy on or forcibly intrude in the lives of any citizen for any reason, anytime, anywhere. According to the U.S. Department of State:

The State has assumed the right to interfere in the lives of citizens, even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.38

Human Rights Watch/Americas has described the situation this way:

The violation of the right of privacy is systematic and pervasive. Tight political control in Cuba is maintained through extensive monitoring of Cubans’ daily lives.39

MININT, like the PCC, is deeply imbedded in the structures of the military,40 and also controls the uniformed Revolutionary National Police (PNR). [8] (http://worldpolicy.org/globalrights/carib/1997-cuba.html#newtactics)

Note the use of the word "systematic", not just of political repression but of simple privacy. This means, not just political opposition, but perceived opposition, as is stated in even those who do not actively oppose the Government and its practices.
Here's an additional source, just in case. [9] (http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y00/feb00/01e4.htm)
Please, present your sources or desist in reverting, and unless there's some charming information against, I will change it to "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition". It's hardly my opinion, it's the verbatim opinion of various informed and respected sources. Kapil 05:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific. All states engage in repression, and what you are adding to the intro is so vague that it could conceivably be added to an intro on any world leader. Consider that most political scientists and sociologists work with the Weberian definition of the state, as an entity that claims a monopoly on violence and coercion within a given territory. States inherently engage in repression. 172 06:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you lost. You're not even making sense now. You're comparing the "monopoly on violence" with communist repression. And terms like "Weberian" don't impress me nor do they help your point. Bring forth some sources which dispute my claims or leave the article as it is, or I'll have you banned. Kapil 07:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you consider "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition" to be vague, then you'll have to expand it, taking into account the plethora of sources presented and the fact you now accepted it to be true. What about "Systematic repression of all perceived opposition to his iron fisted rule"? Or "The installation of a police state which constantly and systematically spies on an represses its population"? Should it be mentioned they also act upon imaginary crime? Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terms like "Weberian" don't mean anything to you because you have no idea what they mean. Grace Note 07:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they don't mean anything because they're being used to change the rules of the game when you notice you've been beaten. Everybody knows about the Weberian definition of the state, though having a monopoly on the use of force is quite different from state repression in Cuba to supress dissent. Read the sources, comment on them or stop making jibes against me, you're not gonna win the argument by making personal attacks and you might just get yourself banned. Kapil 07:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article already mentions that opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression. Please deal with 172's concerns, Kapil. And no, he won't be banned for removing your POV pushing. Grace Note 07:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is not about how "opponents believe that Castro remains in power because of repression", but how Castro turned a once pluralistic society into a police state. I have displayed evidence, and 172's refutation is naïve in that it tries to dismiss Castro's repression as the state's monopoly of force, saying "every state represses". Faced with my sources, the only solution would be to enlarge the line to include mention of said police state, as this is neither my invention nor a simple display of the state's monopoly of force. Kapil 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not trying to do that. Quite the opposite. I was pressing you to be more specific or not to add any unnecessary verbiage to the intro at all. The fact is that what is implied with respect to repression by bringing up Cuba's transformation into a Communist state is more specific on the nature of repression under Castro's regime than the extremely vague statement that his regime engages in repression. All states engage in repression, but a single party does not monopolize power in all states... There is just no need to tell the reader what has already been established, especially when it is so vague that it could in theory be stuck in the intro on any politician. 172 07:33, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, what it all boils down to is that the change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned, as it is as important (or more important) than increases in literacy and healthcare. To let it out would not be fair to the reader, as the Castro presidency has engaged in repression, independent of this being in the definition of a communist country or not. Yes, people can follow the wiki hyperlink, but why should the increases in literacy and healthcare have introductory paragraph mention when a change which is as important (political repression) is not mentioned as it is mentioned elsewhere? Also, in-depth mention of the political structure of Cuba and its changes under the Castro regime are further down in the article, but that's exactly what an introductory paragraph should do - introduce the changes under his presidency, which include the political clampdown. That this is obvious is not entirely true, though I maintain it is worthy of mention, considering that publishing one positive fact but leaving out another equally important, negative fact (in the first paragraph, the one most people read and the one summarizing the contents of the article) does not contribute to neutrality, regardless of the reason being a completely neutral one (wiki readability/redundancy). Kapil 07:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the lengthy response, what I'm saying is basically that removing mention of political repression (or however you want to call it), though it does serve a legitimate purpose (to remove wordiness/redundancy) disbalances the first line of the article. That's my complaint. Kapil 07:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

change under the Castro regime (from a pluralistic society to a police state) should be mentioned Uh, that's not going to fly anywhere, barring journals of hardline Cuban American exile groups... For now, what you keep on adding is just redundant, regardless of whether or not someone considers "repression" legitimate. But if you can think of something that adds to the intro in content and not just verbiage, it will be, of course, considered. 172 07:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe your mention of "verbiage" would seem to be selective, seeing as how the increases in healthcare and literacy are also mentioned further down the page. I would propose to include "his presidency has seen ... the implementation of repressive state policies hostile towards real and perceived opposition to his rule (common to other communist countries previously aligned to the Soviet Union)". Yes, wordy, but something to that effect, as balance is desperately needed in the introduction. Kapil 08:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the content on health and education is down the page. The point of an intro is to establish broad themes that will be elaborated on down the article. 172 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. "Human Rights and Under Castro's Leadership", one of the themes elaborated on down the article, is not even mentioned. It reads: Many argue that several thousand unjustified deaths have occurred under Castro's decades-long rule. Some Cubans have been labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives", and imprisoned in extremely poor conditions without trial; some have been summarily executed. The level of political control in Cuba has relaxed somewhat since the USSR's collapse, but some people still view Castro as presiding over a totalitarian state. Kapil 08:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate for the sake of keeping us focused on NPOV, one could bring up that criticisms of (say) Colombia's human rights record would seem even more egregious. And someone could also bring up that prison is a far more prominent institution here in the U.S. than in Cuba. The U.S. incarcerates five to eight times more of its people per capita than other rich industrialized countries, and possibly has the world's highest per capita prison in the world, much higher than Cuba's. 172 08:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, we're not talking about Colombia, we're talking about Cuba. I'm pretty sure (willing to bet) that human rights worries are mentioned in the Colombia page. Independently, prison conditions in the US are monitored (except for Guantanamo) by international bodies and stuff. We know what's going on in a US prison, and even if there's lots of prisoners, they're subjected to minimum standards. In Cuba, prisons are unmonitored and according to some of the stuff I have read (if you want I can research about it and post it here), pretty spooky shit. But, even if conditions in US prisons were as appalling or whatever, it should be mentioned in the US page and should not remove mention from this page. Also, the US holds people for petty crimes (stealing a car? vandalism?) whereas Cuba holds people for their political beliefs (political prisoners) which is a far graver matter independently of if per capita cuban prison population is smaller than that in the US. Kapil 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the difference is that Cuba has not been facing a 50-year old insurgency and we are not talking about criminals, we are talking about political prisoners. J. Parker Stone 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, El C, you might find these Monthly Review articles interesting if you haven't seen them already. [10] (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0701editr.htm) [11] (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_3_53/ai_77150236) 172 08:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I tried to give Kapil my take on some of the concerns listed above on his talk page. I am hopeful that with such dialogue all the participants will be able to establish consensus with him rather than against him. El_C 08:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the talk page, 172. It was becoming a bit too scorlly, and there were too many issues that were seemingly resolved or redundant. Some items do seem a bit too recent though. I don't really mind myself, but to Kapil: if you wish to restore any parts of the recently archived material, please feel free to do so, or I can do it for you if you like (the last thing I want to see is a new dispute over archiving). El_C 08:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you're welcome, but I didn't archive it. I guess Grace did. Anyway, it timely, considering how unwieldy the page was getting. 172 08:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! Soggy about that! El_C 08:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I archived it :) Kapil 01:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahah! We were close, but way off! :D El_C 02:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 is arguing semantics... this concept of "inherent repression" has nothing to do with whether or not a state actively stifles dissent, which Cuba does, while democracies like the U.S. don't, despite having a "monopoly" on repression. By this logic we should just say military juntas are military juntas and leave it at that since most of them have involved violations of basic rights J. Parker Stone 08:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1959 America and 1959 Cuba

You guys really don't want to get this article involved in comparing Cuba now versus before Castro. Everything is too changed. In USA back then Blacks were systematicly discriminated against. Lynchings occurred and the Congress refused to act. Strange Fruit indeed. Before Castro, Cuba was a kleptocracy with American mobsters running drugs, prostitution, and everything else. Health and Education were a joke. Castro is one of the best of the communist dictators. Some think America drove him into soviet arms with our behavior. I've seen USA sourced statistics showing better health care for the poor in Cuba than America. Casro has done both good and bad. He'll be dead soon and we'll "help" a new government replace the existing dictatorship machinery (so that they, like us, can have the best government money can buy). 4.250.168.126 08:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Health and Education were a joke - Health and education were among the highest in the world, and they certainly were better than in other Latin American countries. Read some of the sources, they repeatedly say so. Kapil 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

from what i've read, the healthcare system was far from catastrophic like the Castro regime likely portrays it as (just like everything else in the 1933-59 era) but services in rural areas were generally lacking. J. Parker Stone 08:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop copying old versions from a text editor or from old diffs, you are erasing (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Salvador&diff=next&oldid=15332829) any new (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=El_Salvador&diff=15265524&oldid=15265262) contributions and I am currently treating your actions as vandalism, which you may be blocked for, though I won't be doing the blocking because it would always look politically motivated, even when warranted. Those are the given conditions. Anyway, as I cited in thw WHO 2005 report, infant mortality was at 60/1000 in 1959 (yes, significantly lower than Haiti's 73/1000 today), today it is at 6/1000. That's a tenfold drop, which by any measure, is a lot (double is a lot). I've already said all this. Sigh. Anyway, this argument seems redundant, not sure what purpose it serves. El_C 08:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how this negates any of what i said. i never said Cuba didn't make progress in healthcare. the issue is how much of it is due to natural developments (as may've been seen in other developing countries) and how much of it is due to state investment. J. Parker Stone 19:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey was blocked by Neutrality and he's out on an extremely short leash. He has been blocked for six hours to slow down this kamikaze edit warring he's started up since I unblocked him just a few minutes ago. He knows that if he does this again I'll just restore Neutrality's indefinite block. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(in)definite block. El_C 10:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the current revision by Trey Stone. It's the least biased of all the versions because it mentions the police state apparatus. Any final version must contain mention of this in the introducion. Kapil 19:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, Trey Stone. If 172 feels it has "excessive verbiage" he better come up with another version which is not as unbalanced to Castro's opponents, though not the euphemistic one he constantly reverts to. If not, I'll just have to revert every chance I get. Sorry, but we have a legitimate point of view and we really don't need to convince 172, no matter how rude he is with his "excessive verbiage" and "POV vandalism" claims. Kapil 23:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

State your reasons for removing the political repression phrase, create ones of your own or stop reverting. Kapil 00:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did, on your talk page. You never got back to me though. El_C 00:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, but I don't agree with it: In communist countries, healthcare is by definition public, therefore (and by definition), universally available. Why should availability of healthcare be mentioned in the introduction, then, if it's obvious? Isn't this also "excessive verbiage" and "redundancy"? The point is, for the sake of balancing out the introduction, what Castro did must be mentioned. That the state's repressive machinery was laid down by his orders during his tenure, is something worthy of being mentioned, as it is more important than the healthcare and literacy advances. Of course, it can be redundant, but then again, for the sake of not being redundant the introduction makes it look as if Fidel Castro is not a dictator, but a healthcare-giving literacy-hiking genius. Also, even if this is in some way obvious (I still maintain it is not), this article talks about his life's work, which includes creating a police state. Therefore it should be mentioned somehow, possibly with a link to "human rights concerns in communist countries" or something of the like, but it shouldn't be let entirely to the user's common sense (many people don't have one). It should be mentioned that he helped build the repressive apparatus that makes his kinda state possible, even if this is by some stretch of the imagination "redundant". Mentioning political repression, police state stuff and the like in one phrase is not redundancy, it would be if an entire paragraph were devoted to it. It's important, and to omit it breaks the balance of the introduction and therefore of the entire article. Kapil 01:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rather, scratch that. This is not for the sake of balance in the introduction, this is for the sake of factual accuracy. You can't mention Idi Amin was a dictator then omit an explanation of his actions claiming he did what most dictators do (bad example, I know, but you get my point). Yes, Castro turned Cuba into a communist state. But the user must know how he did this, what exactly he created, what's the result of his life's work. One of the results of his life's work is that now Cuba is a police state where people get harrassed because of a paranoid central machine. So this should be posted. This is unfortunately common to communism, sure, but even so, it should be mentioned and in no way constitutes verbiage nor redundancy. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, it should be noted due to the dramatic impact it has had as seen in various demographic indictaors (see WHO 2005 report; tenfold drop in infant mortality, literacy rate improvements being "remarkable," et cetera, etc.). As I also argued, a Communist party, by definition, represses political opposition; this is wikilinked, and as such, it is reduandant and actually hinders the flow of the lead. El_C 01:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why shouldn't the construction of a monolithical central repressive police state apparatus be noted if it had an even more dramatic impact in various other indicators (freedom of press, freedom of speech, number of political prisoners, Cuba's pariah status, etc)? It's the exact same thing. Kapil 01:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also maintain that it doesn't hinder readability, and is worth having. Why should your point of view on this be considered over mine? Moreover, why shouldn't a small readability "bump" be permitted for the sake of factual accuracy? Kapil 01:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i trust we'll able the same "standard" to military juntas, almost all of which have engaged in basic violations of human rights and been hostile to political activity? J. Parker Stone 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that it had more of a dramatic impact on those things (viz. the Batista regime), Kapil, I tend to view as your opinion. El_C 01:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. But if you consider it to have had less of a dramatic impact, it's also an opinion. It's of equal importance. Kapil 01:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that you guys want a view of Cuba in the intro that is not supported by the majority of the Western world or even several previously sympathetic third world governments... Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) the fact that you guys think it shouldn't be this way does not change things.

and no Che, it is not a matter of opinion. Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. J. Parker Stone 01:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whereas I don't agree with Trey's calling you "Che", I agree almost wholeheartedly with his statement. Especially the following: Castro is as well-known for his governing style as he is for his achievements in healthcare and literacy (I would argue moreso.) To claim otherwise is just not true. Also, the following: Batista may have acted violently in response to protests, but he never attempted to actively monitor every Cuban's life the way Castro and the PCC bureaucracy has. Those aren't opinions, or rather, to claim otherwise would also be an opinion call (therefore both sides of the story should be included). Kapil 01:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, Batista never had the enemies Castro has. The US government is permanently trying to undermine the communist government of Cuba. Castro would be gone by now if the US had never declared war on him. US makes Castro stronger by opposing him. US gives him the right excuse.--tequendamia 11:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. Kapil 16:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As beggars like to say in Latin America

"We are hungry, don't have clothes, don't have shoes, don't have teeth, don't have opportunities, but we are free carajo!" unsigned comment by User:Tequendamia. — Chameleon 13:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)