| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dulouz
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Uranus
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:09 am Post subject: Castro Has Cancer |
 |
|
Think he'd like some medical marijuana?
| Quote: |
Ever since President Fidel Castro was sidelined for what was said to be abdominal surgery last July, Cuban officials have maintained that the country's leader will return to his post. ''We will again have him leading the revolution,'' said Foreign Minister Felipe P�rez Roque just two days ago, speaking at an outdoor rally to protest the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, according to the Communist Party daily newspaper Granma.
But U.S. officials tell TIME that many in the U.S. government are now convinced that Castro, 80, has terminal cancer and will never return to power. "Certainly we have heard this, that this guy has terminal cancer," said one U.S. official.
Of course, such intelligence reports could be wrong, and one official cautioned that definitive proof is nearly impossible for the U.S. to come by. Yet the fact that the Cuban government removed Castro from the public stage before his death could suggest that Castro and his would-be successors were aware of a terminal condition and wanted to gauge public reaction to his absence. "They got to see how people would react," says one U.S. official. "They have had a chance to see how things might work without out him functioning day-to-day."
The U.S. government has been preparing for Castro's departure for half a century. But this time, the Bush Administration has set up an interagency group to coordinate policy once the inevitable happens.
That doesn't mean that things will change much. Fidel's brother Raul, 75, has been acting president since Fidel went into the hospital and has given no indication that he will change the policies of the isolated Communist government that has tormented the U.S. since taking power in 1959. Though he has until recently kept a very low profile, Raul Castro � not Fidel � was feted as the host of the non-aligned nations' summit on Sept. 15. Then Raul called a high profile meeting of the country's local, provincial and national leadership at what he called "this historic moment in our country's history." In another sign of his increasing prominence, two weeks ago Raul delivered his first televised national speech at the close of a trade union federation congress.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
miguel
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find it incredible that they still call it the revolution - nothing has changed in 50 years.
Aside from that, it seems like a pretty good decision by the Cuban leadership. Not only are they testing the public's reaction to Fidel not being in power, but by moving in a sucessor before he actually dies they are ensuring a clean sucession. There can be no arguments about who Fidel wants to suceed him when the change has been made when he is still alive. Its probably a move to stop any American attempts at a coup, or at least make them more difficult. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bah, don't get your hopes up. You'll still have to go to Canada if you want Cuban cigars.
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hope he suffers for a long long time-he's earned it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sometimes it gets a little frustrating and even boring having a regularly scheduled presidential election every 4 years. But then I'm reminded of Fidel. 45 YEARS.
Even if he were a good thing, that's several decades too long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If it is true that Castro is suffering from cancer, then I am sorry to hear it. It is not only that I find many things to admire about Fidel Castro, especially the young Fidel of the early 1960s. I have sympathy for anyone who suffers from this disease.
On another subject -- that is, the Cuban state's handling of Castro and his illness: I am reminded of the classic Star Trek episode where one of the civilizations was propping up an aged and half-dead ruler and doing all kinds of things in his name and all that he stood for...Does anyone know which one I am thinking of? I can barely remember seeing it. In any case, how far do you think Castro's potential successors are going to take it...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In any case, how far do you think Castro's potential successors are going to take it...? |
I'd give them about 3 years after the old boy is finally gone. Raul is 75, so he will be a stop gap. Things will go on as usual for a short time, then reforms will start. 45 years is a long time for frustrations to pile up. The pressure for change will be enormous. They'll start out in the Chinese direction, then who knows? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I'd give them about 3 years... |
I wonder whether the Miami Cubans will wait that long before they pounce. I wonder how far they will persuade/pressure Washington to back them. I wonder how the pro-Castro bureaucracy and military will respond to all of this.
Poor Cuba. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, poor Cuba.
They are going to need a whole boatload of good luck to escape a nasty transition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He ain't got a cancer. He is the cancer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| He ain't got a cancer. He is the cancer. |
Or so says American dogma. In reality, the status of human righst in Cuba is probably no worse than in China. Most American allies, if not all, have normal trade with Cuba (and don't get me started about how the Helms-Burton Act reveals the American government's arrogance and shows lack of respect for other nations sovereignty. Heck, even its official name, "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996" makes me want to gag). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| He ain't got a cancer. He is the cancer. |
Or so says American dogma. In reality, the status of human righst in Cuba is probably no worse than in China. Most American allies, if not all, have normal trade with Cuba (and don't get me started about how the Helms-Burton Act reveals the American government's arrogance and shows lack of respect for other nations sovereignty. Heck, even its official name, "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996" makes me want to gag). |
"American dogma"?
A few officials talk to the press, probably "on background," and you cite "American dogma"?
Also, do you have a clear idea of who and what were the driving forces underneath Helms-Burton and the other act you cite? If so, you present no evidence here that you do. And, finally, is there no other way to say what you want to say than to reference "American dogma" and talk about "gagging"?
(I agree, by the way, that much U.S. policy towards Cuba has been irrationally driven, and this since the late nineteenth century. But can you not at least discuss it without resorting to dramatics?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
If it is true that Castro is suffering from cancer, then I am sorry to hear it. It is not only that I find many things to admire about Fidel Castro, especially the young Fidel of the early 1960s. I have sympathy for anyone who suffers from this disease.
On another subject -- that is, the Cuban state's handling of Castro and his illness: I am reminded of the classic Star Trek episode where one of the civilizations was propping up an aged and half-dead ruler and doing all kinds of things in his name and all that he stood for...Does anyone know which one I am thinking of? I can barely remember seeing it. In any case, how far do you think Castro's potential successors are going to take it...? |
Patterns Of Force
Episode 50
Airdate: February 16, 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Force_%28TOS_episode%29
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| ChuckECheese wrote: |
| He ain't got a cancer. He is the cancer. |
Or so says American dogma. In reality, the status of human righst in Cuba is probably no worse than in China. Most American allies, if not all, have normal trade with Cuba (and don't get me started about how the Helms-Burton Act reveals the American government's arrogance and shows lack of respect for other nations sovereignty. Heck, even its official name, "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996" makes me want to gag). |
"American dogma"?
A few officials talk to the press, probably "on background," and you cite "American dogma"?
Also, do you have a clear idea of who and what were the driving forces underneath Helms-Burton and the other act you cite? If so, you present no evidence here that you do. And, finally, is there no other way to say what you want to say than to reference "American dogma" and talk about "gagging"?
(I agree, by the way, that much U.S. policy towards Cuba has been irrationally driven, and this since the late nineteenth century. But can you not at least discuss it without resorting to dramatics?) |
So the American government wasn't being arrogant when it come up with Helms-Burton, which disrespects other countries's sovereignty? Please! Driving force or not, it's an American law that seeks to dictate foreign nations's trade policies. What more evidence do you need? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did you even read my post?
Where did I say whether I thought the United States was or was not "arrogant" and why must it always be a one-sided value-laden discussion when it comes to U.S. foreign policy?
By the way, Einstein, William Jefferson Clinton signed Helms-Burton into law. He was, in the way that all presidents are, "the American government" at that time. Was he an "arrogant" and high-handed president? (Didn't Mithridates tell me a while ago that Canadians love Clinton and he would probably be elected prime minister if he ever ran for officer there?)
So, what are the roots of Helms-Burton -- do you even know? What kinds of things were being said in committee -- have you read the transcripts? (I can answer "yes" to both of the above questions -- can you?)
Besides those roots (in Miami and New Jersey: there is your clue), what problems had Castro himself created that made such legislative initiatives likely to come out of the U.S. -- are you even interested in considering such a question?
Perhaps CubanLord can tell us something about this if he is still around...
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
