Is this the beginning of the end of an era in Cuba?
Castro has terminal cancer: report
Time magazine reports ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is believed to have terminal cancer and is unlikely to return to power.
It reports many US officials are now convinced Mr Castro has terminal cancer and will never retake the reins of the Americas' only communist-ruled country.
The rumours have emerged despite remarks by Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque on Wednesday that Mr Castro "continues to recover [and] we will have him back leading the revolution".
The 80-year-old Cuban leader handed over the presidency for the first time in almost five decades to his brother Raul Castro, 75, who has long been Cuba's defence chief, after undergoing intestinal surgery in July.
He has largely remained out of the public spotlight since then.
Time.com notes the intelligence reports on Castro's health could be wrong.
But reporter Tim Burger, one of the article's authors, told CNN television: "There have been lots of rumours over the decades about Castro's health. This time, there's specificity and they attribute credibility to the reports".
This is a widely talked about topic especially since Saddam was captured and recently hanged. I have read posts by both Vercordious and Boomslanger on another thread.... http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/eblah/b-newsintpolitics/m-1132120254/s-45/ post 53 and 54 which raise the issue of dictators, despots and tyrants of this modern so called enlightened era. I have created this thread so we can all have a say regarding modern day and past tyrannical leaders of the world.
There is this really terrible and erroneous thing many are doing in justifying the invasion of Iraq in that they attempt to grade dictators and autocratic rulers by evilness.
Saddam = 1 Hu Jintao = 65
It goes, "Saddam Hussein was the most evil dictator in the world so America and the COW were justified in lying to invade his country to get rid of him. Hu Jintao, though a vicious autocratic ruler who along with his predecessors has oppressed, tortured and killed more, is not evil because he trades and deals with the West (well with Western industry)".
No mention of really evil autocratic leaders like Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, who fully supported by the US, makes Saddam look like a kindergarten despot. Of course oil is involved and one big US oil company.
I will add more to this conversation later but there is a CIA World Factbook that is freely available on the net, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html and if you do some looking you can find the current list of dictators.
There is a common theme throughout and that is America's support for dictators, some of the worst in the modern era and the US's role in bringing down legitimate democratically elected governments to replace them with autocratic rule, mainly because the democratic government was anti-American (they have interfered in Australian politics for the same reason).
The thread throughout is oil or America's big business interests. Read "100 Years of Regime Change" by Steve Kinzer. Did you know that the US militarily deposed the legitimate king of Hawaii and turned that country into a US State because the king kicked out a US sugar baron who was exploiting Hawaiian workers and destroying the environment?
If you really want to get an insight into dictators and America's support for them, read the harrowing true story by Sister Dianna Ortiz called the Blindfold's Eyes and the subsequent campaign by the US to belittle and silence her (http://www.maryknoll.org/MALL/ORBIS/ortiz_memoir.htm).
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Correct me if I'm wrong about this (I was never good at history), but Saddam was tried and executed for crimes he commited 20 years ago.... now didn't he have U.S. backing back then?
The U.S seems to overlook atrocities from countries that have it's backing until they decide to withdraw support (for whatever reason). Then it's all about human rights and WMDs.
Making a deal with them is like making a deal with the devil, but what choice do the less powerful countries have when all the large Western countries seem to be wedged up the U.S.A's arse.
In heaven, there are no interesting people - Nietzsche
The U.S seems to overlook atrocities from countries that have it's backing until they decide to withdraw support (for whatever reason). Then it's all about human rights and WMDs.
With Saddam though it is more that Saddam withdrew from the US than the US pulling support for Saddam. If Saddam had kept playing the US's game and continued to give them Iraq's cheap oil in US dollars (oil traded in native dollars is extremely important in the scheme of things for a country in massive debt like America) then to this day Rumsfeld would still be making his regular visits to Iraq to shake Saddam's hand and to give him billions in military aid.
The moment Saddam stopped doing what the US wanted and doing what he wanted (invading Kuwait for stealing his oil for one thing), that was the moment America turned. Remember before he fell out of favour with the US Saddam was the most secular Arab country in the region with Christian ministers. He also had some of the most progressive women's rights and pro-female policies in the world (he had better maternity and family provisions than Howard has). Also Iraq had the most advanced and progressive universities in the region.
Also remember that nearly all of Saddam's worst atrocities were done under the full support of America who even covered up his gassing of the Kurds at Halabja. That last is on the record btw with the CIA at the time coming out with press releases and saying the Kurds were gassed by Iran. It was this support and covering up for Saddam that made Saddam think he could do anything he wanted and get away with it.
In this world America only does what is good for America, noone else comes into the equation, except to be used and discarded as necessary. Ask Tony Blair and the terrible way he has been treated by Bush, whilst being Bush's staunchest ally and then daring to speak out on occasion against the US. Howard on the other hand couldn't be more subservient and sycophantic so he gets thrown little crumbs like Hicks every now and again, but make no mistake if our government ever spoke against US policy we would dumped on big time. Even though our government kow tows and boot licks to the US like no other nation on earth we are still shat upon in trade, business, environment and other matters by the US.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Also remember that nearly all of Saddam's worst atrocities were done under the full support of America who even covered up his gassing of the Kurds at Halabja. That last is on the record btw with the CIA at the time coming out with press releases and saying the Kurds were gassed by Iran. It was this support and covering up for Saddam that made Saddam think he could do anything he wanted and get away with it.
Maybe that's why the U.S. wanted him dead so quickly. Before anyone started trying him for his other crimes and realising that he had FULL U.S. backing.
9/11 was a tragic event, but it looks like no one learnt from it. Not to mention, everyone's forgotten about the man said to be responsible for it.
It's very interesting you bring that up because the trial continued on in Iraq today with Saddam's chair empty of course, but his half brothers and others still facing charges. What got my attention was that all the other charges against Saddam, including the killing of 180 Kurds the Americans knew about at the time but covered up, were dropped by the judge and no further investigation is to be conducted into them.
They are charging the others on specific incidents that cannot be tied to the America.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
. . . all the other charges against Saddam, including the killing of 180 Kurds the Americans knew about at the time but covered up, were dropped . . . .
It was 'generous' of them to drop the charges . . (now we know why lawyers are regarded as parasites) . . there were probably a team of them got paid to argue that point.
I will be out of the country for the first 12 days of BB . how clever am I ! Smart enough to leave the 'dead-heads' behind
Fidel Castro, one of the longest reigning Dictators the world has ever seen, is apparently on his death bed. Although, typical of communist countries, that is a matter of dispute. Of all the 'famous and/or infamous' people in the world he is the one I would most want to meet.
Castro battling for his life, says Chavez January 21, 2007
Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is fighting for his life, his friend and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said.
"He's back in Sierra Maestra and locked in a battle for his life," said Mr Chavez, referring to Dr Castro's legendary guerilla war that toppled Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 and ushered in his Cuban Revolution.
"There are those who want Fidel to die," Mr Chavez said, alluding to a recent Spanish press report that Dr Castro, 80, was gravely ill following three failed operations.
"But I spoke to him a few days ago ... We trust he will recover completely," Mr Chavez told the Rio de Janeiro state legislature on Friday.
Mr Chavez has visited Dr Castro and often speaks to him by telephone.
There has been mounting speculation over the condition of Dr Castro, who has not been seen in public since being taken ill in late July.
Last week, a US intelligence chief said Dr Castro was terminally ill and might have only days to live.
"I don't know when he's going to die," said Mr Chavez.
"I hope he lives another 80 years, I hope he lives another 100 years, but Fidel Castro is one of those men who will never die."
"He's like Che Guevara, the immortal Che," the leftist president said, in reference to the legendary guerilla leader and Dr Castro's right-hand who was killed in Bolivia in 1967.
After intestinal surgery, Dr Castro transferred power temporarily to his 75-year-old brother Raul, who is defence minister, and the Cuban Government since then has made his health a state secret.
Mr Chavez was in Rio de Janeiro to attend a two-day summit of the Mercosur trade bloc, of which Venezuela is a member along with Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay.
Meanwhile, the Spanish doctor who examined Dr Castro last month said his health was improving and again dismissed as alarmist reports in the media.
Spanish newspaper El Pais had reported on Wednesday what it said were fresh details about Castro's condition, saying the treatment he had been given had triggered serious complications.
Logged
