"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Combinado del Este was filled with tens of thousands of people who simply
thought differently.


Castro had to have the support of a lot of people to take over. Do you
suppose there was an issue of the have-nots living much less well than
the haves? I certainly do.

The distribution of wealth is complicated nearly everywhere. That alone is
neither a justification nor an excuse.

One case I am most familiar with is that of a university professor who spoke
out after Castro declared the Revolution to be socialist. He discussed the
duplicity with his students and faculty. Soldiers arrived at his home, and
they shot him while the children and his wife watched. I work with one of
the daughters, who is in a position of responsability in Miami.

Castro could have let the dissidents emigrate... or forced them to. No, he
killed many to silence them and put many more in the prisions.

Don't forget that Castro received money
and weapons from Cubans in the U.S. who wanted to get rid of Batista
after his coup in 1950 or so.

Tiny faction, though. I don't think it is material in this overall context.
There is more significance than substance, with the significance residing in
the fact that Castro so skillfully duped people into thinking he was not a
leftist but a populist.

Unfortunately Castro turned out to be
just another in a long list of bad guys ruling that country. By
isolating Cuba diplomatically and economically we actually drove him
further into the arms of the USSR.

The USSR alliance appears to have been set up before Castro announced his
socialist agenda before Bay of Pigs; it was likely his plan all along.
Isolation came much later after the missle crisis and the abortive invasion.

Castro and his regime are not
suffering from our boycott activities, the average cubans are. There
is nothing to be gained by continuing this half-century boycott of Cuba
and a lot to be gained by opening relations.


There is considerable investment by European firms and Mexican ones in Cuba.
The boycott is more a bone thrown to the influential Cuban community in
Miami.

David Eduardo wrote:
"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Combinado del Este was filled with tens of thousands of people who simply
thought differently.


Castro had to have the support of a lot of people to take over. Do you
suppose there was an issue of the have-nots living much less well than
the haves? I certainly do.

The distribution of wealth is complicated nearly everywhere. That alone is
neither a justification nor an excuse.

One case I am most familiar with is that of a university professor who spoke
out after Castro declared the Revolution to be socialist. He discussed the
duplicity with his students and faculty. Soldiers arrived at his home, and
they shot him while the children and his wife watched. I work with one of
the daughters, who is in a position of responsability in Miami.

Castro could have let the dissidents emigrate... or forced them to. No, he
killed many to silence them and put many more in the prisions.

Don't forget that Castro received money
and weapons from Cubans in the U.S. who wanted to get rid of Batista
after his coup in 1950 or so.

Tiny faction, though. I don't think it is material in this overall context.
There is more significance than substance, with the significance residing in
the fact that Castro so skillfully duped people into thinking he was not a
leftist but a populist.

Unfortunately Castro turned out to be
just another in a long list of bad guys ruling that country. By
isolating Cuba diplomatically and economically we actually drove him
further into the arms of the USSR.

The USSR alliance appears to have been set up before Castro announced his
socialist agenda before Bay of Pigs; it was likely his plan all along.
Isolation came much later after the missle crisis and the abortive invasion.

Castro and his regime are not
suffering from our boycott activities, the average cubans are. There
is nothing to be gained by continuing this half-century boycott of Cuba
and a lot to be gained by opening relations.


There is considerable investment by European firms and Mexican ones in Cuba.
The boycott is more a bone thrown to the influential Cuban community in
Miami.

You have negative credibility. When someone like you criticizes Castro,

it just makes him look good.

David Eduardo wrote:
"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...

David Eduardo wrote:

Combinado del Este was filled with tens of thousands of people who simply
thought differently.


Castro had to have the support of a lot of people to take over. Do you
suppose there was an issue of the have-nots living much less well than
the haves? I certainly do.

The distribution of wealth is complicated nearly everywhere. That alone is
neither a justification nor an excuse.

But it is certainly what gave him the support to pull off a coup in
Cuba.
And it is what gave the support to continue on in the 1960's when the
USA was mistakenly trying to ignore then invade the island. We screwed
up both attempts.


One case I am most familiar with is that of a university professor who spoke
out after Castro declared the Revolution to be socialist. He discussed the
duplicity with his students and faculty. Soldiers arrived at his home, and
they shot him while the children and his wife watched. I work with one of
the daughters, who is in a position of responsability in Miami.

Yes, lots of terrible things have happened in lots of countries.
Imagine being black and living in mississippi or alabama in the 1950's.


Castro could have let the dissidents emigrate... or forced them to. No, he
killed many to silence them and put many more in the prisions.

He could have. Any many willingly stayed and showed their support.


Don't forget that Castro received money
and weapons from Cubans in the U.S. who wanted to get rid of Batista
after his coup in 1950 or so.

Tiny faction, though. I don't think it is material in this overall context.
There is more significance than substance, with the significance residing in
the fact that Castro so skillfully duped people into thinking he was not a
leftist but a populist.

His first failed attempt was financed that way. He continued to
receive support from the group of pols toppled by Batista.



Unfortunately Castro turned out to be
just another in a long list of bad guys ruling that country. By
isolating Cuba diplomatically and economically we actually drove him
further into the arms of the USSR.

The USSR alliance appears to have been set up before Castro announced his
socialist agenda before Bay of Pigs; it was likely his plan all along.
Isolation came much later after the missle crisis and the abortive invasion.

No, Eisenhower began the process in 1960.



Castro and his regime are not
suffering from our boycott activities, the average cubans are. There
is nothing to be gained by continuing this half-century boycott of Cuba
and a lot to be gained by opening relations.


There is considerable investment by European firms and Mexican ones in Cuba.
The boycott is more a bone thrown to the influential Cuban community in
Miami.