Who Won: Bush or Castro? A Look at Their Impact on Society

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter flotsam
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the contrasting impacts of George W. Bush and Fidel Castro on society, with participants debating their legacies. Key points include the assertion that Cuba, despite its flaws, has better child mortality rates than the U.S., and that both leaders represent corrupt institutions. Participants argue that Castro prioritized social welfare while Bush is seen as a proponent of imperialism. The conversation highlights the complexities of freedom and equality, emphasizing that both leaders have significant shortcomings.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of political ideologies, particularly socialism and imperialism.
  • Familiarity with the historical context of U.S.-Cuba relations.
  • Knowledge of child mortality statistics and their implications for societal health.
  • Insight into the concepts of freedom and equality in political discourse.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical impact of Fidel Castro's policies on Cuban society.
  • Examine the effects of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, particularly during the Bush administration.
  • Analyze child mortality rates in Cuba versus the United States and their societal implications.
  • Explore the philosophical debates surrounding freedom and equality in political theory.
USEFUL FOR

Political scientists, historians, students of international relations, and anyone interested in the socio-political dynamics of Cuba and the United States.

flotsam
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
It is reality that one if these men dedicated their lives to better society. Dictator or the elected. Who won? Who gave us something positive to remember? Who resides in a capital with the least child mortality? Washington or Havana
The answer is that George and Washington has the worst record. Who has won and who will win?
Cuba, with all its failings is better than a unelected idiot who does not care of the children!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
flotsam said:
with all its failings is better than a unelected idiot who does not care of the children!

Well I wouldn't say Castro doesn't care about the children...
 
Pengwuino said:
Well I wouldn't say Castro doesn't care about the children...

I know you were not. I was talking of Bush
 
flotsam said:
I know you were not. I was talking of Bush

Cuban propaganda at its finest. Open your eyes next time.
 
Pengwuino said:
Cuban propaganda at its finest. Open your eyes next time.

open your eyes. Castro for all his failings has dealt in priorities. Long live priority.
 
flotsam said:
Castro for all his failings has dealt in priorities.

You mean murder and manslaughter? Because then I would agree 'coz it is one of his priorities. Castro is a dirty dictator who has killed Cuba. Bush is bad but inspite of all his failings, to say Castro is better than Bush is just idiotic.
 
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez have done more for their people than Bush ever did. Cuba, Venezuela and other places in the Americas were all victims of European colonialism and imperialism.
 
Yet, for some reason, loads of Cubans try to get to the US each year...on boats, rafts, dinghies, tethered automobile tires and really anything that will float... knowing fully well that they'll probably drown before they get very far, or more likely, get caught by the Cuban coastguard and have to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Ungrateful wretches, eh ?
 
  • #10
You're both making the false assumption that one of them has to be better than the other. Castro and Bush are both proponents of a corrupt institution imposed on the will of the people. They're both statists, it doesn't matter which one is "better", it only matters that they're both evil bastards.
 
  • #11
Gokul43201 said:
Yet, for some reason, loads of Cubans try to get to the US each year...on boats, rafts, dinghies, tethered automobile tires and really anything that will float... knowing fully well that they'll probably drown before they get very far, or more likely, get caught by the Cuban coastguard and have to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Ungrateful wretches, eh ?

the ones caught spend far less time in jail 6 months to 3 years max
and now the USA send most back as not TRUE political but econonmic
refugees
nobody ever went to jail for life for rafting out
BTW I live in Miami Fl

and as most of centrial and south america is doing the same
[ by less extream tranport]
just how does this make Cuba a special case?

we need border control BADDLY the time for open borders is OVER

btw2 costs of this mess are many
inc the main support of cuba
is now coming from miami in payments from our cubans
to their people back on the island
draining much cash from our city
add in the 100,00's of others doing the same to every country south of us
and the amounts leaving our local econ is staggering
makeing Miami the poorest major city in the USA
 
  • #12
Gokul43201 said:
Yet, for some reason, loads of Cubans try to get to the US each year...on boats, rafts, dinghies, tethered automobile tires and really anything that will float... knowing fully well that they'll probably drown before they get very far, or more likely, get caught by the Cuban coastguard and have to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

Ungrateful wretches, eh ?

But Cuba was much worse before Fidel Castro. It was a racist apartheid. Now their socialist economy is starting to improve.
 
  • #13
Smurf said:
You're both making the false assumption that one of them has to be better than the other. Castro and Bush are both proponents of a corrupt institution imposed on the will of the people. They're both statists, it doesn't matter which one is "better", it only matters that they're both evil bastards.
Well said.

They are also both victims/products of failed systems.
 
  • #14
Having said that, I think that we (people with political opinions) can learn valuable lessons from both of them, and we shouldn't completely ignore the one we dislike the most.
 
  • #15
There will never be absolute fairness i think. It's because freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another.
 
  • #16
X-43D said:
There will never be absolute fairness i think. It's because freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another.
I agree.

So what is important is to judge what is working and what is not.

It is not fair or just to infringe on freedom, nor is it fair or just to deny equality.

Therefore what must be done is to encourage those with the most freedom to work for greater equality. Governments sould use incentive instead of forced redistribution.

Castro used force to impose his vision on Cuba.

Bush has no real vision so he is implementing that of the strong and influential people he associates with, people who happen to be very self interested.
 
  • #17
Skyhunter said:
So what is important is to judge what is working and what is not.
It is not fair or just to infringe on freedom, nor is it fair or just to deny equality.
Equality of what ? Status or opportunity ?
 
  • #18
Gokul43201 said:
Equality of what ? Status or opportunity ?
is there a difference?
 
  • #19
X-43D said:
There will never be absolute fairness i think. It's because freedom and equality are often in conflict with one another.
utter nonsense. freedom and equality are synonymous. there is no conflict, there never was.
 
  • #20
freedom and equality are synonymous.

eh? So if everyone is free, then everyone will be equal?
This is in contridiction with Evolution.. The strongest, fittest and most well adapted survive..

So in a nongovermental raw animal situation like for example in the perhistoric man situation would you say everyone was equal although they were totally free from any outside influences that we today have? I would say nope
 
  • #21
Smurf said:
utter nonsense. freedom and equality are synonymous. there is no conflict, there never was.

Surely it must occur to you every now and then that it would be kosher to back up, with some form of argument, these bald assertions of yours, no? Freedom and equality are definitely not synonyms, so it would be interesting to hear how they can be synomymous.
 
  • #22
Castro is a better leader than Bush. The critics claim that Castro limits freedom, uses propaganda, and uses violence. Bush does all of those things, so, in order to determine which leader is truly better, we must examine what causes the champion. Bush, in my opinion, represents fascism and imperialism, and Fidel is a leader of a semi-socialist state. I certainly prefer Castro.
 
  • #23
loseyourname said:
Surely it must occur to you every now and then that it would be kosher to back up, with some form of argument, these bald assertions of yours, no? Freedom and equality are definitely not synonyms, so it would be interesting to hear how they can be synomymous.
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free. I think it's you who has the burden of proof to show that they're different or opposed to each other.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Smurf said:
I don't know. I think it stands to reason that if people are unequal, someone will be less free.
Perhaps you two are talking about two different things. Freedom is a legal issue. Equality can be a legal issue or not depending on what type of equality you are talking about. Certainly if people are treated differently under the law then certainly one would be less free - that was the basis for shooting-down "separate-but-equal" in the '60s. But just plain being unequal, ie someone making more/less money, having more/less education, etc. does not imply lack of freedom.

Sometimes I think liberals lump those two together to say that there should be forced equality in every way, sort of like what communism would advocate, but it should be clear that such a thing is very much anti-freedom because it requires putative legislation to actively limit the freedom of people who are too successful.
 
  • #25
Smurf said:
is there a difference? [between status and opportunity]
Status is outcome and opportunity is starting conditions. Perhaps you don't agree that only equality of opportunity should be guaranteed, but surely you've heard that idea before? It's an important part of the basis of modern western political theory! People say "level playing field", not "tie score in the game".
 
  • #26
russ_watters said:
Status is outcome and opportunity is starting conditions. Perhaps you don't agree that only equality of opportunity should be guaranteed, but surely you've heard that idea before? It's an important part of the basis of modern western political theory! People say "level playing field", not "tie score in the game".
I just don't see the difference. If you have more money than someone you can get a better education than them. That's not equal opportunity.
 
  • #27
Smurf said:
utter nonsense. freedom and equality are synonymous. there is no conflict, there never was.

And they both are equally important. Liberal socialism stands for both.
 
  • #28
X-43D said:
And they both are equally important. Liberal socialism stands for both.
No it doesn't. You can't force equality.
 
  • #29
Smurf said:
No it doesn't. You can't force equality.

True because the rich don't won't equality.
 
  • #30
X-43D said:
True because the rich don't won't equality.
no, because in order to force something on someone you have to have more power than them. You're not equal if you have more power than them.
 

Similar threads

News Bush's Re-Election Bid Looking Good: A Look at the Numbers
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
News Do Some Americans Worship George W. Bush?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News How long until the left labels Zell Miller a traitor?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K