PDA

View Full Version : Fidel Casto Quits


Nickdfresh
02-19-2008, 06:27 AM
Fidel Castro Resigns Cuban Presidency

from The Associated Press


HAVANA February 19, 2008, 05:47 am ET · An ailing Fidel Castro resigned as Cuba's president Tuesday after nearly a half-century in power, saying he was retiring and will not accept a new term when the new parliament meets Sunday.

"I will not aspire to nor accept — I repeat, I will not aspire to nor accept — the post of President of the Council of State and Commander in Chief," read a letter signed by Castro published early Tuesday in the online edition of the Communist Party daily Granma.

The announcement effectively ends the rule of the 81-year-old Castro after almost 50 years, positioning his 76-year-old brother Raul for permanent succession to the presidency. Fidel Castro temporarily ceded his powers to his brother on July 31, 2006, when he announced that he had undergone intestinal surgery.

Since then, the elder Castro has not been seen in public, appearing only sporadically in official photographs and videotapes and publishing dense essays about mostly international themes as his younger brother has consolidated his rule.

A new National Assembly was elected in January, and will meet for the first time Sunday to pick the governing Council of State, including the presidency that Fidel Castro has held since the assembly's 1976 creation. Before 1976, Castro was president under a different government structure, and previously served as prime minister.

There had been wide speculation about whether Castro, Cuba's unchallenged leader since 1959, would continue as president.

"My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath. That's what I can offer," Castro wrote. But, he continued, "it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer. This I say devoid of all drama."

Castro said Cuban officials had wanted him to remain in power after his surgery. "It was an uncomfortable situation for me vis-a-vis an adversary that had done everything possible to get rid of me, and I felt reluctant to comply," he said in a reference to the United States.

The resignation opens the path for Raul Castro's succession to the presidency, and the full autonomy he has lacked in leading a caretaker government. The younger Castro has raised expectations among Cubans for modest economic and other reforms, stating last year that the country requires unspecified "structural changes" and acknowledging that government wages that average about $19 a month do not satisfy basic needs.

As first vice president of Cuba's Council of State, Raul Castro was his brother's constitutionally designated successor and appears to be a shoo-in for the presidential post when the council meets Sunday. More uncertain is who will be chosen as Raul's new successor, although 56-year-old council Vice President Carlos Lage, who is Cuba's de facto prime minister, is a strong possibility.

In the pre-dawn hours, most Cubans were unaware of Castro's message. Havana's streets were quiet, and there was not even any movement at several party-run neighborhood watch groups known as Revolutionary Defense Committees in Old Havana.

It wasn't until 5 a.m., several hours after Castro's message was posted on the Internet, that official radio began reading the missive to early risers across the island.

President Bush was notified of Castro's resignation by his national security adviser while traveling in Africa, Bush spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

Castro rose to power on New Year's Day 1959 and reshaped Cuba into a communist state 90 miles from U.S. shores. The fiery guerrilla leader survived assassination attempts, a CIA-backed invasion and a missile crisis that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Ten U.S. administrations tried to topple him, most famously in the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961.

His ironclad rule ensured Cuba remained communist long after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism across Eastern Europe.

Monarchs excepted, Castro was the world's longest ruling head of state.

"The adversary to be defeated is extremely strong," Castro wrote Tuesday, referring to the United States. "However, we have been able to keep it at bay for half a century."

Raul Castro had long been his brother's designated successor. The longtime defense minister had been in his brother's rebel movements since 1953 and spent decades as No. 2 in Cuba's power structure.

The United States, bent on ensuring neither brother is in power, built a detailed plan in 2005 for American assistance to ensure a democratic transition on the island of 11.2 million people after Fidel Castro's death. But Cuban officials insisted there would be no transition, saying the island's socialist political and economic systems would outlive Castro.

Castro's supporters admired his ability to provide a high level of health care and education for citizens while remaining fully independent of the United States. His detractors called him a dictator whose totalitarian government systematically denied individual freedoms and civil liberties such as speech, movement and assembly.

The United States was the first country to recognize Castro after his guerrilla movement drove out then-President Fulgencio Batista in 1959. But the two countries soon clashed over Castro's increasingly radical path. Castro seized American property and businesses and invited Soviet aid.

On April 16, 1961, Castro declared his revolution to be socialist. A day later, he defeated the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion.

The United States squeezed Cuba's economy and the CIA plotted to kill Castro. Undaunted, the Cuban president supplied troops and support to revolutionaries in Africa and Latin America.

Hostility over Cuba reached its peak on Oct. 22, 1962, when President Kennedy announced there were Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. After a tense week of diplomacy, Soviet Premier Nikita S. Krushchev pulled out the weapons.

With the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, Castro eventually made peace with many governments that once shunned him. Pope John Paul II visited the island in January 1998.

The loss of Soviet aid plunged Cuba into financial crisis, but the economy slowly recovered in the late 1990s with a tourism boom.

Castro later reasserted control over the economy, stifling the limited free enterprise tolerated during more difficult times.

Fidel Castro Ruz was born in eastern Cuba, where his Spanish immigrant father ran a prosperous plantation. His official birthday is Aug. 13, 1926, although some say he was born a year later.

He attended Roman Catholic schools and the University of Havana, where he received law and social science degrees.

Castro launched his revolutionary battle as a young man, organizing an unsuccessful July 26, 1953 attack on a military barracks in the eastern city of Santiago.

Later freed under a pardon, Castro went to Mexico and organized a rebel army that returned to Cuba and rallied support in the Sierra Maestra mountains. His rebels took power when Batista was forced to flee.

Entering Havana triumphantly, Castro declared: "Power does not interest me, and I will not take it."

NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19155738)

Man of Stoat
02-19-2008, 07:55 AM
Don't bank on any positive change until both he and his brother are pushing up the daisies...

32Bravo
02-19-2008, 08:39 AM
Wasn't Castro an improvement on Batista?

My understanding is that Cuba was pretty much run by the Mafia until Castro came along?

Man of Stoat
02-19-2008, 09:27 AM
It was hoped that he would be. Which is why the US initially embraced him. However, give me a corrupt Mafia run prosperous authoritarian state any day over an even more corrupt totalitarian poor basket case communist state.

At least the place worked under Batista, and people didn't feel the need to flee the place on rafts to try and get out.

Panzerknacker
02-19-2008, 05:33 PM
My understanding is that Cuba was pretty much run by the Mafia until Castro came along?

Just a different kind of mafia, the communist one....wich is very keen to accept the "decadences" of the capitalism word but deny those to his people.

Gen. Sandworm
02-19-2008, 06:36 PM
I have somewhat of a respect for the man..............however good riddance to the worlds biggest pick pocket! He is not dead.............which is probably the best political move for him to keep the country going. As long as he is alive Cuba will be the same.

Kato
02-20-2008, 02:55 AM
It was hoped that he would be. Which is why the US initially embraced him. However, give me a corrupt Mafia run prosperous authoritarian state any day over an even more corrupt totalitarian poor basket case communist state.

At least the place worked under Batista, and people didn't feel the need to flee the place on rafts to try and get out.

I doubt that the US agreed to accept refugees from Cuba under Batista.

Kato
02-20-2008, 02:57 AM
Don't bank on any positive change until both he and his brother are pushing up the daisies...

Are there any positive developments in other states of the region that are allied to the US?

Nickdfresh
02-20-2008, 04:42 AM
Just a different kind of mafia, the communist one....wich is very keen to accept the "decadences" of the capitalism word but deny those to his people.


They're all corrupt weasels. Castro betrayed his people. But then again, the US's actions in this part of the world have been abominable at times...

32Bravo
02-20-2008, 02:55 PM
I'm reading two doctrines in this thread:

1) Hate Commies!

and

b) Munro Doctrine.

Can anyone make a free-thinking comment, without chucking in the usual indoctrinated, emotive, "Shoot 'em up, hang 'em high" "Commie bastard" - ballocks?

Panzerknacker
02-20-2008, 05:21 PM
The commies are bastards, that is not bollocks, but I dont hate them, actually I believe that I dont hate anybody, I just feel a heavy dislike by its policies.

And by the way , that is my free thinking comment. Sorry If you dont like but that is. :rolleyes:

32Bravo
02-20-2008, 05:54 PM
The commies are bastards, that is not bollocks, but I dont hate them, actually I believe that I dont hate anybody, I just feel a heavy dislike by its policies.

And by the way , that is my free thinking comment. Sorry If you dont like but that is. :rolleyes:

It's not a question of me liking it, the truth is the truth whether one likes it or not, but one has to say something a tad more substantial in order to be convincing. Your comment just reads like the same old outpourings of the right-wing, stating belief as fact.

Panzerknacker
02-20-2008, 06:19 PM
Well, I am aware of my limitations...I am not too creative perhaps, but still that is my opinion and Is clear you dont like my comment.


Your comment just reads like the same old outpourings of the right-wing, stating belief as fact.


And who said I am not one of those outpourers ? ;)

Man of Stoat
02-21-2008, 03:27 AM
It's not a question of me liking it, the truth is the truth whether one likes it or not, but one has to say something a tad more substantial in order to be convincing. Your comment just reads like the same old outpourings of the right-wing, stating belief as fact.

Tell that to my colleagues from East Germany, Romania, Poland, Hungary etc who -- get this -- actually lived it, and know how bad it is. Not one of them would go back to the "old system".

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 03:53 AM
Well, I am aware of my limitations...I am not too creative perhaps, but still that is my opinion and Is clear you dont like my comment.

Clearer to you than it is to me. I haven't read anyone opinions, as yet, so, I can't acually like or dislike.


And who said I am not one of those outpourers ? ;)


Who cares?

I would just like to see some credible and balanced outpourings.

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 03:57 AM
Tell that to my colleagues from East Germany, Romania, Poland, Hungary etc who -- get this -- actually lived it, and know how bad it is. Not one of them would go back to the "old system".

Did they 'live it' in Cuba?

I'm sure they could put up a convincing argument. I'm just not seeing one here.

All that I do see here, is what Chevan once described to me as being 'Habit'.

Man of Stoat
02-21-2008, 04:23 AM
And here we, and again, see the double standard that no one would be asking for this about Pinochet's Chile, fascist Hungary, fascist Romania, Franco's Spain, fascist Argentina, or even Nazi Germany.

People will accept a priori that these were "bad", but have a soft spot for communist tyranny, but no, we have to present "convincing arguments" as to why a country with rationing, no freedom of the press, no political freedom, political imprisonment, "disappearances" etc and which people are prepared to risk 90 miles of shark infested custard to flee on a pile of old oil drums is equally bad (or indeed worse).

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 08:49 AM
And here we, and again, see the double standard that no one would be asking for this about Pinochet's Chile, fascist Hungary, fascist Romania, Franco's Spain, fascist Argentina, or even Nazi Germany.

I would challenge those regimes equally, I hadn't realised that we were discussing them ?


People will accept a priori that these were "bad", but have a soft spot for communist tyranny, but no, we have to present "convincing arguments" as to why a country with rationing, no freedom of the press, no political freedom, political imprisonment, "disappearances" etc and which people are prepared to risk 90 miles of shark infested custard to flee on a pile of old oil drums is equally bad (or indeed worse).


By 'People' are you referring to my good self, or are you making a general observation?

On a previous thread you were practically accusing me of being a Nazi. Now, it would seem that I'm a Communist?


Personally, I preferred the writings of George Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984) to those of George Bernard Shaw.

Shaw was a good hearted man, but a victim of his own good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There are those that wield power, those that covet it, and the rest of us.
It's generally accepted that the weak minded are easily led. I challenge those that would lead by stating that their way is the better way, regardless of political, religeous or any other faith or doctrine.
If I hope for anything, it is most probably justice. The 'Lynch-mob' is not what I would consider justice.
As far as I'm concerned, any regime which holds power for too long a time slides into the mire of corruption.

Let me see, if I'm able to illustrate what it is I'm getting at (It's not simply that I'm not the brightest light on the street, my i.q. more realisticly resembles a low-energy lightbulb, but there is a little light and I use it sparingly).

Say, I argued that the basic teachings of Jesus Christ and, indeed the words of the Commandments, are good.

I would also argue that in reality they couldn't work (although Karl Marx might argue differently).

Already we see that the teachings of Christ were distorted by a person we know as St Paul, as opposed to the more acurate teachings of St Peter (Aristotle and Plato).

So, basically, Paul becomes the founder of the Papacy of Rome.
It can be argued that this was formed in order to acquire power and control over others, and like all organisations which seek to exercise power and control, has slid into corruption.

Does that mean, then, that all Christians are Christian Bastards, or that all Papists are Papist Bastards, simply because they have faith in something that has been corrupted by others? I think not, you might differ.

Even in our own dear country, we accept that governments must change in order for our system of democracy to remain healthy, regardless of which political party might be in the driving seat. It's better for our liberty and for our economy.

Nickdfresh
02-21-2008, 08:50 AM
And here we, and again, see the double standard that no one would be asking for this about Pinochet's Chile, fascist Hungary, fascist Romania, Franco's Spain, fascist Argentina, or even Nazi Germany.

People will accept a priori that these were "bad", but have a soft spot for communist tyranny, but no, we have to present "convincing arguments" as to why a country with rationing, no freedom of the press, no political freedom, political imprisonment, "disappearances" etc and which people are prepared to risk 90 miles of shark infested custard to flee on a pile of old oil drums is equally bad (or indeed worse).


I think this is in fact a big over-generalization. One of the problems I have with US policy, is that it is hijacked by a small, but significant, proportion of the population which translates into a large voting bloc in Florida of Cuban emigres that lost the civil war, and some are still trying to refight it. The right wing Cubans have essentially maintained in place an embargo against Castro's horrible regime which is more punitive and hurtful to the people than to him and actually has allowed him to transfer the blame to their deprivations to the US as his bogeyman "Snowball" he uses to rationalize his quashing of the opposition...

Yet we freely trade with the PR Chinese and a whole host of other dictators from the left or right. I've never defended Castro, who I see as a meglamaniacal prick, who has committed human rights violations. I just don't understand the fixation on him. And the Batista was hideously corrupt and was largely propped up by the mafia and supported by a few Americans and Europeans that simply wanted to use a very small percentage of the territory that made up Cuban resort hotels and casinos as their vacation land, while the vast majority of Cubans benefited little and lived in squalor. I don't blame them for wanting change and joining the Revolution. But I do blame Castro for becoming a bombastic whore for the Soviets...

Firefly
02-21-2008, 08:53 AM
Ah well, no system is perfect and there will always be those that crave power. No doubt Castro started out well enough with the intention of freeing his country from a corrupt right wing regime. What they ended up with was a corrrupt left wing regime.

What they need is what the rest of us seem to have, a corrupt democracy.

Its all just varying degrees of corruptness after all.....

Nickdfresh
02-21-2008, 09:02 AM
Ah well, no system is perfect and there will always be those that crave power. No doubt Castro started out well enough with the intention of freeing his country from a corrupt right wing regime. What they ended up with was a corrrupt left wing regime.

What they need is what the rest of us seem to have, a corrupt democracy.

Its all just varying degrees of corruptness after all.....


Yeah, what's interesting to note is that Castro is worth big money. Not uber-capitalist money. But he's certainly a multi-millionaire...

Man of Stoat
02-21-2008, 09:03 AM
Having read biographies of Castro, it is absolutely clear that he never had the intention of "freeing his country from a corrupt right wing regime". He wanted power for himself and for his mates. Even while he was a university he was involved in political gangsterism and political murders (apparently the student political scene was rather "lively", and it is also known that he himself pulled the trigger on a least one political murder during his time as a student). He even served a small amount of very soft time as a political prisoner for this (political prisoners under his regime could only dream of the soft treatment he himself received under Batista).



B32: when did I ever accuse you of almost being a Nazi?

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 09:17 AM
B32: when did I ever accuse you of almost being a Nazi?

If you do not recall, then it isn't worth going there. :)

The East European countries you previously mentioned were occupied by the Soviets, and their regimes were not born of revolution.

There is not usually a revolution with out justification.

Castro coveted power?...Yes!

With new governments and regimes it is somewhat akin to the four seasons (not the band),

They arrive as refreshing as spring, rise to full and glorious summer, and then begin the slide into the corruption of deep winter. Then it becomes time for change.

We, uneiversally, ought to clean up our own backyards before we go about cleaning others. Then we might have the moral right to offer a better way.

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 09:19 AM
Ah well, no system is perfect and there will always be those that crave power. No doubt Castro started out well enough with the intention of freeing his country from a corrupt right wing regime. What they ended up with was a corrrupt left wing regime.

What they need is what the rest of us seem to have, a corrupt democracy.

Its all just varying degrees of corruptness after all.....


I have difficulty determining whether you are taking the piss, or not, with that French head?:confused:

Man of Stoat
02-21-2008, 09:35 AM
We, uneiversally, ought to clean up our own backyards before we go about cleaning others. Then we might have the moral right to offer a better way.

So because we are not 100% perfect we do not have the right to criticise something which is SIGNIFICANTLY worse? I take it you never offer criticism then...:roll:

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 09:47 AM
So because we are not 100% perfect we do not have the right to criticise something which is SIGNIFICANTLY worse? I take it you never offer criticism then...:roll:

Rolling eyes - how unkind.

Surely, you must have realised by now that hypocracy is one of my many facets.

Bottom line - I only take myself seriously for very short periods, then I become bored.

Panzerknacker
02-21-2008, 01:31 PM
Bottom line - I only take myself seriously for very short periods, then I become bored.

I ll take that as a warning.

Never again will try a serius discussion with you.:rolleyes:

32Bravo
02-21-2008, 02:21 PM
I ll take that as a warning.

Never again will try a serius discussion with you.:rolleyes:

How bizarre...more rolling eyes!

MOS can't argue his point without resorting to personal comments. Now you are getting personal on me.

What is it with you chaps and your egos?

If you want a serious discussion, please continue, I'll let you know when my attention span is failing. I find it difficult to take anyone serious when they are aiming their comments at me rather than discussing the issues, simply because I challenged their beliefs.

Once you begin with ;) and then follow with :roll: and :rolleyes:
Then I slide into boredom.

If you have a credible point to make, then make it instead of trying to belittle me.

I posted 'ballocks' merely to demnstrate that that which was coming from yourselves was of the same ilk i.e. the language of the lynch-mob and the bigotted. There was no explanation to reinforce the comments either of you made, as if they were acceptable by right, I find that rather arrogant. When I struck back in a similar vein i.e. 'ballocks', you didn't like it. It certainly got your attention.

As for not having a serious discussion with me again - well, that's your choice! I certainly wont be losing any sleep over it.