Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Fidel Castro Resigns

Posted by samzenpus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 08:52 AM
from the end-of-an-era dept.
Smordnys s'regrepsA writes "Fidel Castro, the leader of the island nation of Cuba has declined the possibility of keeping his seat as President, after the February 24th National Assembly election. "I neither will aspire to nor will I accept — I repeat — I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief," Castro wrote almost 19 months after a severe illness caused him to hand power temporarily to his brother Raul."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Thank God (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2008, @08:54AM (#22474096)
    Now maybe I can get good cigars legally.
      • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:12AM (#22474286) Journal
        But there aren't a lot of French people living in Florida or any other swing states.
      • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:35AM (#22474512)

        Remind me again... why is the U.S. mad at them? France has pulled worse shitball stunts against you than Cuba has.
        They nationalized property without compensating international businesses. This earned them the initial embargo. Then they became Soviet puppets. This made it permanent. And when they refused to change when Carter dropped the embargo they lost the sympathy of future administrations that restored it. Various acts like supporting leftist guerrillas or shooting down Cessnas with MiGs continued to earn them international contempt.

        I'm not arguing for the embargo, but I just think it is wise not to paint Cuba as some super free haven that has the best health-care and education in the world. It is not as bad as the neo-cons paint it nor is it as good as the far left paints it. Hopefully Castro's resignation will spark a multi-party democracy.
        • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Guspaz (556486) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @10:11AM (#22474950) Homepage
          "international contempt"? They're strong allies of Canada. The primary source of international contempt towards Cuba comes from the US. My guess (and it's just a guess) is that the world looks more favourably on Cuba than the US due to foreign policy. Gitmo doesn't help.
        • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Informative)

          by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:09AM (#22475602)
          They nationalized property without compensating international businesses.

          Hey now. Batista and those international businesses (US mafia) were no saints. Most of those companies were run by the Mob and Batista took bribes all the time when it came to business practices while squandering the Cuban people's money he collected through taxes and the state lottery.

          Yeah, Castro was no saint either, but the amount of corruption and totalitarianism by Batista and his cohorts is almost the same. (Heck Batista overthrew elections several times).

          Had the US simply accepted Castro and opened relations with him as a legitimate government he would not have turned to the Soviets for aid. Remember... The world almost went nuclear over the fact we wouldn't just acknowledge that we could work together or at least stop Batista while we had a chance when he over threw the elections and installed a dictatorship.
        • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

          by C10H14N2 (640033) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:10AM (#22475616)
          They nationalized property without compensating international businesses.

          So did Mexico. So did Venezuela.

          Then they became Soviet puppets.

          Pretty much all of Europe east of Austria, a third of Latin America, half of Africa and most of Asia. We left the first reasonably well alone, but we fought direct wars all over the second and proxy wars everywhere else, but the worst we can muster with Cuba is, what, the Bay of Pigs? Hell, we killed Ghaddafi's daughter with a cruise missile and now we're toasting his health. What gives?

          Various acts like supporting leftist guerrillas or shooting down Cessnas with MiGs continued to earn them international contempt.

          We never removed diplomatic relations from Russia, we established it long ago and never rescinded it with China, even though we were fighting a half dozen proxy wars in Africa and Asia funded by both of them (think: Iran-Contra and the other war in Afghanistan, and a little tiff we call 'Vietnam' for starts), and we recently restored it with freakin' Libya--which is, from the American point of view at least, a terrorist sponsoring socialist dictatorship in the habit of not bringing down Cessnas, but, with Pan Am 103, like the Soviets with KAL007, bringing down 747s. But, then again, in their eyes, so are we, what with blasting Iranian Air 655 out of the sky, incinerating about 300 civilians in the process, for which we paid $60 million and refused to apologize. We milked Libya for $2 Billion and made them grovel in order get back on the party invite list.

          It is not as bad as the neo-cons paint it nor is it as good as the far left paints it.

          The "far left" is more in the habit of pointing out the cozy relationships neo-cons and democrats alike have been more than happy to have with regimes FAR more out of line than Cuba. I mean, honestly, the PRI, Pinochet and Noriega were best buddies but Castro was Satan incarnate? Are we kidding here? The point of it is we could AFFORD to isolate Cuba (or, say, Chile) for having dirty little socialist tendencies in order to make a shining example of our not allowing other forms of government in our hemisphere. When countries like Mexico or Venezuela pull the same thing, we wag our fingers in their general direction, shrug, and let the container ships and oil tankers roll into port on schedule. The "far left" looks at that and puzzles why it's A-Okay to blow your kids' college fund in Moscow, Beijing, Triploi, Tehran, Panama or Saigon--hell, you can lunch in Pyongyang with no trouble from the Feds and we're technically still at war with them--yet it's a crime worthy of imprisonment to smoke a stogie in Havana?
            • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

              by C10H14N2 (640033) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @12:33PM (#22476832)
              Like, say, killing the people that try to escape it?

              Mass political murder was good enough for Pinochet, the PRI and Noriega -- and they were all good enough for us...and only one of those three was even vaguely socialist.
                • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by C10H14N2 (640033) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @01:54PM (#22478104)
                  Nice that you brought that up. So is not the killing part that disturbs you, is the "reason" part. So, if the "excuse" is just right, then is ok.

                  Back at 'ya. What's so disturbing about all the various atrocities that have been committed by dozens of countries that are apparently a-okay, even while at the height of executing said atrocities, yet when performed on a far lesser scale (and often factually questionable to any degree) make Cuba supremely evil and worthy of banning American citizens effectively from so much as setting foot there? You could travel to and spend money in the Soviet Union during the cold war, we had full diplomatic relations the entire time, and they were "the Evil Empire" supposedly hell-bent on the complete annihilation of our entire way of life under hair-trigger threat of nuclear hellfire sufficient to wipe out every city with a population exceeding fifty, yet some old coot with a cigar and a fleet of '56 Chevys is worthy of total blockade? Hell, the worst he's done is let the Russians plant three nukes on his island. For godssakes, FRANCE has more firepower pointed at us than every commie in the Western Hemisphere combined.

                  Come on...
        • Super-free haven? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Nexus7 (2919) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:47AM (#22476108)
          No, I don't think the left argues that Cuba is some kind of paragon of liberty. They argue that the policy towards Cuba should be something like that towards China, one of engagement that will encourage them to move towards free market reforms, which will lead to individual freedoms.

          Stating that "the left" has some rosy idea about Cuba makes people say, well, nobody has the right answer, both sides are equally bad. That isn't the case.
        • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MrSteveSD (801820) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:53AM (#22476218)
          Don't, mistake official explanations with the real reasons. The US has being trying to control Cuba since the 1800s but the British Navy was an obstacle for a long time. John Quincy Adams noted that "the laws of political gravitation" would bring Cuba into the hands of the U.S.

          Eventually the US saw an opportunity when Cuba was striving for independence from Spain. The resistance in Cuba was wary of US offers of help because they were worried that once in, the US would never leave. However, the US gave assurances that would not be the case (e.g. Teller Amendment) and went in to help the resistance. Once the Spanish-controlled government was overthrown, the US (predictably) refused to leave. General Samuel B.M. Young expressed the opinion... "a lot of degenerates...no more capable of self-government than the savages of Africa,".

          Eventually US forces did leave, but they laid down conditions for withdrawal, known as the Platt Amendment. The Cubans had to agree to a US Naval Base (the now infamous Guantanamo Bay) and to never transfer any Cuban land to a power other than the US. The terms also allowed the US to intervene in Cuban affairs when the US deemed necessary. Under US pressure, the terms were even embedded into the Cuban constitution. Eventually this repressive and imperialistic amendment was repealed in 1934 under Roosevelt's "Good Neighbour policy" but the US refused to give up Guantanamo bay and it can only be removed with the consent of both parties (an unlikely occurrence to say the least). Of course, it was ok for the US to give up these powers in 1934 because Fulgencio Batista was already the de facto ruler of Cuba. With this US-backed dictator in place, the Platt Amendment wasn't really necessary.

          Eventually this nice little arrangement ended in 1959 when Castro toppled Batista. That is the source of US anger ever since. It is the anger of losing control of Cuba. All the rest of it is just excuses. It was the fear of invasion from the US (which was being planned) that drove Castro into an alliance with the USSR. Eventually there was an invasion attempt (bay of Pigs) but fortunately for Castro it was totally pathetic, possibly bordering on a US attempt at humour.

          Although there was no successful invasion, the US conducted a long terrorist campaign against Cuba including the destruction of crops and what we would regard today as Al Qaeda-style bombings. Right now the US is harbouring Possada Carriles who is widely believed to have been behind the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed 73 people. The US denies involvement in the bombing, but refuses to extradite him to Venezuela citing fears that he might be tortured. Since the US government does not believe that waterboarding is torture, I can only assume they fear he may be subjected to something worse than waterboarding.

          The US government will always claim that hostility towards Cuba is for one reason or another but the truth is that it wants control of Cuba and always has. Being a democracy is no guarantee that the US will leave you alone as the case of Venezuela amply demonstrates. The US teaches some unfortunate lessons. It teaches that if you have an open democracy, and you are not a government liked by the US (e.g. a socialist one), the US will use that openness against you, even going as far as coup attempts as was the case in Venezuela, Guatemala etc. If some future leader of Cuba does want to make a transition to democracy, he will no doubt have second thoughts after looking at US subversion in Venezuela and elsewhere.
          • Re:Property (Score:5, Insightful)

            by pnewhook (788591) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @10:25AM (#22475108)

            The US should push for Cuban property to be given (or sold) to the Cuban population.

            The US should stay the hell away from the internal affairs of other sovereign countries.

            • Re:Property (Score:5, Funny)

              by AndGodSed (968378) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @10:40AM (#22475278) Homepage
              I second that. USA is not the worlds policeman.

              as to your sig:

              "Hold on Dad, I'll go." - Jesus
              • Re:Property (Score:5, Insightful)

                by pnewhook (788591) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @12:17PM (#22476622)

                The US can, should, and (more often than most other countries) does take useful measures to improve the human condition - humanitarian projects, encouraging democratic political reform, standing up for human rights.

                Do you have any idea what your government does with its foreign policy?? How about assasinating democratically elected leaders (Iran, most of central America, etc), providing weapons to terrorists (to the Taliban in Afghanistan against USSR, Iran against Iraq, Iraq against Iran, etc), setting up puppet governments (Panama, Cuba, etc), and keeping detainees on foreign soil for years without trial or any charges (Guantanamo, facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc). Shall I go on?

                In short - clean up your own crap before you go finger pointing at other countries.

              • I'm pretty sure the Germans were against those actions, whereas the Cubans are largely happy with the way their country works.

                Sure, the dual economy is wrecking them on an international market, but hopefully the increased presence globally will help with that. As a building technologist who has worked in Cuba (Canada and Cuba get along great, I can actually buy Cuban cigars at the Hasty Mart down the street from my house) I can tell you that Cuba is doing the best they can with a bad starting position, and it's really quite pleasant down there. A poor economy != unhappy population.
                  • Re:Property (Score:5, Insightful)

                    by HiThere (15173) <charleshixsn&earthlink,net> on Tuesday February 19 2008, @02:11PM (#22478372)
                    It *would* have become a free, democratic nation if we hadn't originally spruned Castro's overtures of friendship. Then he was, essentially, forced to turn to either Russia or China...and Russia offered him more. (Remember Castro was a graduate of, I believe, Harvard. He *expected* to normalize relations with the US quickly. But he was also a pragmatist, and looked for support where he could get it after we rebuffed him.)

                    As to Batista's friends who held that property...they deserved much worse. Land grants by a dictator are a poor basis for claims to recompense when someone else comes to power. (Is Castro a dictator? I don't know. Definitely not to the same extent that Batista was. Batista was vile.

      • Re:Thank God (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:17AM (#22475692)

        Remind me again... why is the U.S. mad at them? France has pulled worse shitball stunts against you than Cuba has.

        Well, agreeing to host Soviet missiles around 1960 would qualify as a seriously shitball stunt. Still, that was 40-some years ago. You want the real reason? It all started when Castro pissed off the mob who ran the casinos in Havana, who just happened to be Kennedy's buddies. Lately, there's a certain amount of face-saving that prevents normalization of relations with Castro, as well as the exceptionally strong agriculture lobby in the US which really doesn't want to see a flood of cheap rice on the US market.

        Nevermind France, how the shit have we gotten more friendly with *Qaddafi* in Libya? (replace with spelling of your choice).

  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @08:55AM (#22474108) Homepage Journal
    The Bay of Pigs Invasion finally draws to a successful conclusion, a mere 47 years behind schedule.
    • by CFBMoo1 (157453) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:11AM (#22474274) Homepage
      The Bay of Pigs Invasion finally draws to a successful conclusion, a mere 47 years behind schedule.

      The only thing that ever beat Duke Nuke'm Forever in terms of a release date.
            • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:35AM (#22475950)
              No evidence of limb chopping to a casual search.
              Lots of executions but mainly during the first 15 years of his rule. Since then it seems to mostly be arbitrary prison terms and allowing the prisoners to be abused (physically and sexually). However, this also happens in American Prisons and America incarcerates its own citizens at a higher rate- we just make everything illegal so we do not have to use bogus crimes like "insulting the president" to put someone away for seven years. OTH, you better not say anything mildly threatening or your fate will be similar. Of course, America has become a lot more of a fascist dictatorship than it was in 1960. And, of course, any good discussion needs to point out that Cuba was a dictatorship and 3/4 of it's property was not owned by its own citizens (conditions ripe for revolution by *someone* and a lot of revolutions were occuring- castro was just the successful one).

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Human_rights_record [wikipedia.org]

              Human rights record

                      Main article: Human rights in Cuba

              Thousands of political opponents to the Castro regime have been killed, primarily during the first decade of his leadership.[135][136] Some Cubans labeled "counterrevolutionaries", "fascists", or "CIA operatives" were also imprisoned in poor conditions without trial.[137][138] Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs, were labor camps established in 1965 to confine "social deviants" including homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses to work "counter-revolutionary" influences out of certain segments of the population.[139] The camps were closed in 1967 in response to international outcries.[140] Professor Marifeli Pérez Stable, a Cuban immigrant and former Castro supporter has said that "There were thousands of executions, forty, fifty thousand political prisoners. The treatment of political prisoners, with what we today know about human rights and the international norms governing human rights ... it is legitimate to raise questions about possible crimes against humanity in Cuba."[141]

              Castro acknowledges that Cuba holds political prisoners, but argues that Cuba is justified because these prisoners are not jailed because of their political beliefs, but have been convicted of "counter-revolutionary" crimes, including bombings. Castro portrays opposition to the Cuban government as illegitimate, and the result of an ongoing conspiracy fostered by Cuban exiles with ties to the United States or the CIA. .[142]

              http://www.hrw.org/wr2k2/americas5.html [hrw.org]
  • Ironic statement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ConceptJunkie (24823) * on Tuesday February 19 2008, @08:55AM (#22474118) Homepage Journal
    "I neither will aspire to nor will I accept -- I repeat -- I neither will aspire to nor will I accept, the position of president of the council of state and commander in chief"

    Funny... he said something very similar when he and his revolutionaries kicked out Batista in the first place.

  • So, does this mean (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:03AM (#22474202)
    ...we can finally end this sad old Cold War charade and finally end the damn embargo?
  • by iBod (534920) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:04AM (#22474210)
    Before corporate America invades, and it's Wendys, Burger King, McDonalds and Starbucks on every street in Habana.

    For those of you that have never been to Cuba, it really is a unique place.

    Not for much longer, I fear.
      • Freeing the country will do wonders to bring the truth to light, especially with the renewed faith in this system amongst the poor of Latin America.

        Yes, they can look up to Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvidor, Honduras, Guatemala, etc as a testament to the triumph and prosperity of capitalism and democracy.
          • by 0111 1110 (518466) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @01:07PM (#22477416)

            None of the places where you would need a resident's card to get into,
            It is painfully obvious you have never been to the island. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. There is no such 'resident' card and no such restricted areas. I'm not sure there is anything that could be called a 'slum' in Cuba either. The nice/rich areas like Miramar and (to a lesser extent) parts of Vedado are the exception. Otherwise most of the housing in Cuba is pretty similar.

            I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post. You are so far beyond clueless I cannot believe you recieved a +5 moderation. I don't think there is even one sentence in your entire post that is not completely wrong. Just a heads up to anyone reading that. I lived there for 14 months. I know what I am talking about and every single statement that applekid has made is factually incorrect. He knows absolutely nothing about the place. When you don't know anything about a topic how about it if you just STFU instead of spreading misinformation. Try talking about something about which you actually have a clue.
          • by ahaile (147873) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @01:17PM (#22477586)
            I've lived in Cuba for well over a year, all combined, as my wife is a Cuban researcher. A lot of what you're writing here is just plain FUD. Let me see if I can clear a bit up:

            Mostly likely, as a tourist, you stayed in tourist areas. None of the places where you would need a resident's card to get into, which, conveniently, are these unkept slums of poverty.


            There are NO parts of Cuba where foreigners are not allowed. Just because you may have chosen to stay in the tourist zones doesn't mean you had to. There are no entry checks for residency cards (carnets) to get into the slums. You want to go there, fine, go there. I lived in Cerro, one of Havana's "zonas marginales" -- marginal, aka impoverished areas -- for over a year. The opposite, however, is true: there are places in Cuba, like the main tourist beaches of Varadero, where foreigners are allowed but Cubans without tourist jobs are excluded.

            Internet access alone is enough to get the common Cuban without the luxury of being in the designated front-of-stage areas thrown in jail.


            Yes and no. It's true that internet access is shamefully restricted in Cuba. So Cubans do what they've always done, they rely on friends and family to get around the barriers. Those who have access (like I did, though it cost me plenty) got to play mailman: every time I dialed in, I had several messages to send out and several to receive for the people I knew.

            A few blocks down the road you probably had a grocery store filled with just about every item you could want, like in any industrialized nation's grocery store.


            Nope. I did most of my shopping at the agropecuario, the same farmer's market that Cubans use. Except for rum. Domestic (peso) rum was awful. And the export-quality (dollar) rum was sooooo good.

            If you got sick you probably had an excellent hospital waiting for you with private rooms and the skilled doctors and the latest in technologies, not the crumbling biological dumps where they can barely keep the bathrooms clean and the only anti-biotic they have is pennicillin.


            Wow that's off base. I caught an eye infection while in Cuba and had to have minor eye surgery. I didn't go to the tourist hospital (Clinica Cira Garcia, the one in Michael Moore's film), I went to the national one. The doctor was very professional, the clinic was clean, the medications were current. After I came back to the US I had follow-up with a local doctor and he concurred with the treatment I'd been given. Official cost to me: 0. Actual cost to me: $20. Being an American, with the resources I had and knowing what it would have cost me in the US, I just couldn't leave without giving the doctor something. So I gave her $20. She was embarrassed but took it. My Cuban hosts understood but thought I should have given only $10.
      • Did he really? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shis-ka-bob (595298) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:55AM (#22474794)
        I do not defend Castro's dictatorship, but for many he seems to have been a 'benevolent' dictator. This is something of an oxymoron, so what I mean is this: For many working class Cubans, Castro's government has established a strong safety net and an egalitarian society. There is no question that Castro was also ruthless in dealing with political adversaries and I would not have liked to live in such a closed society. But like any other government, his was neither purely good nor purely evil. What did he do well and what did he do poorly? He did work hard to address the needs of 'his' people. A controlled economy with a strong safety net does result in an economy with a lower average income, but how strongly does is affect the median income? Is it better to be an average Cuban or an average Mexican? Both seem to be willing to take great risks to get out. GDP per capita, the standard measure of a nation's economy, doesn't address income distribution: The average income of Bill Gates and 9 Slashdotters is simply 10% of Bill Gates income + round off error. I would like to see economic analysis of developing nations that is measured by percent of population living below a locally adjusted poverty line. Does anyone know of such a study?
        • for a country, with a large poor population, going radically socialist, at the detriment to some freedoms, in order to force a large part of the population out of poverty. for example venezuela's hugo chavez is using petrodollar-funded socialism to aid venezuela's poor (those petrodollars, ironically, considering chavez's hot air about evil america, are coming from american soccer moms refilling their suvs)

          however, also consider the recent vote a few months back in venezuela [wikipedia.org]. chavez, to his credit, asked the venezuelan people if they would let him alter the constitution to dramatically extend his powers. rather than just take those powers by force, like we hear about time and time again in the world. the venezuelan people rejected his power grab, even in the poor parts of venezuela that enthusiastically support chavez otherwise. and chavez, again to his credit, accepted their decision

          however, in cuba, you have those authoritarian despotic powers that castro weild. does he have that right? no, he certainly does not. and i think if you asked the average cuban, who benefitted the most from the enforced socialist policies that castro enacted, why they couldn't also have more democratic freedoms, i think that cuban would probably have the same opinion of castro as those poor venezuelans do about chavez: yes to castro's policy, no to castro's absolute power

          so socialism for the poor: yes. despotic autocracy: no. in such a way, you can criticize castro without rejecting the policies that benefitted the cuban poor

          and btw, frankly, as an american, hugo chavez can talk about constant phantom cia threats on his life, how the evil imperialistic america is about to invade caracas at any moment, etc., blah blah blah. zzz. be as big a fearmongering demagogue gas bag as he wants, i don't care. as long as he uses petrodollars to aid venezuelan poor, and he doesn't abuse his powers and destroy venezuelan democracy, chavez has my support 100%
  • Thorn in the Side? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gryle (933382) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:27AM (#22474416)
    From the article: "Castro...turned tiny Cuba into a thorn in the paw of the mighty capitalist United States."
    Bay of Pigs was really the fault of Kennedy. So other than the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don't recall Cuba doing anything significantly irritating. I don't think one incident qualifies Cuba for "thorn in paw" status. Perhaps someone more historically enlightened could explain this to me?
  • nothing to see here (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0111 1110 (518466) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:32AM (#22474476)
    As someone who has actually lived in Cuba for more than a year, I thought I should inform some of you that, while it is of some historical importance, this news changes very little politically. His brother Raul is as much of a communist as Fidel. It is highly unlikely that any Cuban policies will change due to this development. I think what we are all waiting for is for both Fidel and Raul to actually die. When that happens there is at least some possibility of real change. And since Bush didn't change his position wrt cuba when Fidel 'temporarily' stepped down due to illness I doubt if he will do so now that the change has been made permanent.
  • Castro's bum rap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JulianConrad (1223926) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:42AM (#22474608)
    For all his faults, in some ways Castro valued human life more than you'd expect from all the propaganda in the U.S. about "communism." He kept his people from starving in the 1990's after the collapse of the Soviet Union cut off a lot of Cuba's oil supply (unlike North Korea's Kim, who clearly doesn't give a crap about the starving people under his heel); at least Cubans don't have to eat dirt, literally, like their neighbors on Haiti. He's kept up a basic healthcare system and invested his country's meager resources into finding treatments for tropical poor people's diseases ignored by Western pharmaceutical companies. He had moved his country's population out of harm's way when the inevitable hurricanes rake across the island. And he even offered to send medical help to the U.S. for Hurricane Katrina's victims. So in some nontrivial respects he wasn't a totally bad guy.
  • Allow for tourism and trade, let the economic ramifications encourage a change of policy.

    (ie: people enjoying $$$ influx, will demand that it continues)
  • by DVega (211997) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @11:16AM (#22475680)
    Cuba health indicators [wikipedia.org]

    According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the chance of a Cuban child dying at five years of age or younger is 7 per 1000 live births in Cuba, while it's 8 per 1000 in the US. WHO reports that Cuban males have a life expectancy at birth of 75 years and females 79 years. In comparison, the US life expectancy at birth is 75 and 80 years for males and females, respectively. Cuba's infant mortality rate is better than the US with 5 deaths per thousand in Cuba versus 7 per thousand in the US. Cuba has nearly twice as many physicians as the U.S. -- 5.91 doctors per thousand people compared to 2.56 doctors per thousand, according to WHO.
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:02AM (#22474188) Homepage
      It means the return if the Cuban Bride business. We no longer have to suffer with the long shipping delays of the Russian bride business and now can get women to marry us sight un-seen in a few hours instead of a few months.

      Nerds everywhere are that much closer to being possibly able to touch a boobie.
    • Re:News For Nerds (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:43AM (#22474624) Journal
      Although I agree with your point that US relations with Cuba isn't exactly news for nerds, news about Brad and Angelina isn't news for ANYBODY. They're just actors. Nothing thay doe will affect the world, let alone MY world. Castro resigning does, in fact, affect me.

    • Re:Cool (Score:5, Interesting)

      by value_added (719364) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:34AM (#22474490)
      Does this mean the expat's in Miami will finally shut up and I can visit Havana soon (legally).

      The Miami crowd has too much to lose to allow that to happen. And they have enough political influence to prevent someone from dismissing them any time soon, despite a willingness by the American public to adopt a new perspective, keen interest by big business, and numerous attempts over the years by legislators and other interested parties who consider the current policy a long and drawn out failure to change the situation.

      Besides, who in Cuba do you think is, or is going to be, running things?

      On a side note, the term "expats" (no "s" needed, thankyou) I would reserve for someone like the English hanging out in the bars of Santa Monica, CA, watching football and drinking Guiness. The Miami crowd, on the other hand, will carry their memories, resentments and feelings forward for generations to come. Think of the Kurds in Iraq, the Palestinians in Israel, and both the Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo, among countless other examples, and you'll get the idea.

      Tourists, cigar afficionados and late 50's model car enthusiasts will have to wait.
      • Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gmack (197796) <gmack@noSPAm.innerfire.net> on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:41AM (#22474594) Homepage Journal
        It's important to note that, if it weren't for the embargo to blame all of Cuba's economic troubles on, Fidel Castro likely wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as he did.

        The political lobbying by the Cubans in Florida had the exact opposite affect from the one the wanted.
    • Re:Idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrSteveSD (801820) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:40AM (#22474574)
      Exactly. When Castro met up with Che Guevara after the Guatemalan government was ousted, he wanted to know what happened. He couldn't believe that such a popular socialist (and democratic) government was overthrown. Guevara told him that the US had infiltrated the press and the unions and was spreading propaganda and stirring up trouble (which it was). Not surprisingly when Castro ousted the US-backed dictator Batista, he cracked down on the press and unions for fear of US infiltration. So the US taught an unfortunate lesson. i.e. If you have a government we don't like, and you have an open society, we will use that openness to attack and undermine your government.

      Now I don't approve of the Castro dictatorship, even though it is better than the US-backed Batista dictatorship. However, I acknowledge how difficult it would have been to have a socialist democracy in Cuba without the US subverting the whole thing very quickly. They almost succeeded quite recently in Venezuela during the failed coup in 2002 and they are also supporting opposition groups in Bolivia right now. The governments in Central and South America are really quite sick of the US trying to control them all of the time and there is a real backlash taking place.
    • Re:So does this mean (Score:5, Informative)

      by 1729 (581437) on Tuesday February 19 2008, @09:45AM (#22474654)

      So does this mean that we can get our fancy cigars again?

      Ironically, the end of the embargo will probably make it harder for Americans to get genuine Habanos, at least for a while. As of now, it isn't difficult to have Cubans cigars delivered to the USA from an authorized Habanos SA [habanos.com] retailer. However, the demand for Cuban cigars already exceeds the supply (unless you're interested in the infamous Glass Top Cohibas [cigaraficionado.com]), so the influx of Americans interested in trying these forbidden cigars will result in shortages around the world. The newly-legal cigars will also be met by large numbers of fakes [www.cbc.ca], making it even more difficult to get the real thing.