"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
wrote:
I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does
seem
to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that
Castro
is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could
rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument
presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not
have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing
more
than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il.
My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run
before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good.
Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba
than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do.
Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro?
In recent years, because of the lack of economic opportunity in Cuba,
the same reason why we get so many immigrants from Mexico, Salvador, et
cetera.
Cuba has never been a wealthy country. Prior to Castro, Cuba did make
significant amounts of money for its leaders, and for US gangsters and
corporations, but that is because they were sucking up the profits and
doing next to nothing for the workers.
Then why didn't the workers hop on a boat and flee the country under
Batista?
I suspect that growing up in New Jersey (my mom was from Hudson County),
and living so close now to Little Havana, that I have a lot more Cuban
friends than you. None of them share your view of Castro vs. Batista.
Your knowledge of history is defective, as is your understanding of the
motivation of many of the Cubans who came here in years past.
The motivation of many of the folks who I know that moved here is that
Castro came in and took their homes, took their businesses, and put their
family members in jail.
There's nothing "defective" about those first-hand accounts.