Talk:Fidel Castro

The egg stuff a the end: Someone has references on that? --Lgallindo (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Did exile Cubans hold US foreign policy hostage or did they not?
I am asking because Owlman insists on edit warring over it. I think that it is no accident that a large minority in a swing state got exactly what they wanted in the otherwise irrelevant field of US relations with Cuba, rather it shows their outsize influence. Worzelpete (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Trying to kill their leader over 600 times, protect a terrorist, bomb them, and invade them and still be irrelevant. We have al I am also not the only who has "edit-warred" on this; Cloth has reverted you too.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I am not wholly against your assertion but you are stressing the idea that it has been Cuban exiles who have been the main reason for the Cuban embargo rather than the US's imperialist goals; they have been a useful scapegoat for this issue.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The US never declared an official embargo against a great many communist or fascist or religious extremist countries. And they also did not declare most places in the world off limits for even private holiday travel. But for Cuba they did. Why? Because Electoral College. Worzelpete (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure the Cuban exile has power in Florida and Florida has power through the Electoral College but that doesn't mean the Cuban exiles can dominate the US's foreign policy.They can't dominate our policy as effectively as many other people can because they don't have a rich country backing them; the US never intervened on behalf of the Irish against the UK despite the Irish being one of the largest ethnic groups in the US. The exiles act more as useful idiots for our imperialism against Cuba than anything else; we expressed this imperialism through attempts to destroy their economy because our invasions, assassinations, and state-sponsored terrorism both failed and became unpopular internationally.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * US sympathy for the IRA is probably one of the few things that kept Thatcher from going into Northern Ireland with massive military might and killing everything trying to resist on sight. The current status quo in Norther Ireland is not exactly to the disliking of either the IRA or the Irish lobby in the US. And I find it strange that you are one of those who seem to believe in a (((Israel lobby))) but dismiss even the possibility of US policy on Castro having a connection with La Habana pequeña in Miami. Worzelpete (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing the exiles influence on the US's foreign policy; as I said an ethnic group's population isn't anywhere near the power that a nation-state's lobbying can wield such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Also, our Irish population didn't stop the Brits from killing and torturing the Irish as late as 1981 nor did it stop Thatcher from denying IRA members political rights while letting them starve to death in their hunger strike.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Saudis sit atop a few arrobas of oil. What exactly does Israel have to even theoretically force the US to do their bidding? Also, what do you think would have happened if there had been no sympathy for the Catholic Irish whatsoever in the US? Or worse yet, sympathy for the Protestants in Northern Ireland. Look at what Thatcher did in the Falklands War, where US support for Argentina was so strong they even declared official neutrality (The last war in which the US did that). Worzelpete (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Money, every country has money; Israel also happens to be the biggest buyer of US arms. To be fair, Israel and the Saudis are used to exert US imperialism in the MENA so neither is unilaterally having the US "do their bidding". Our neutrality on the Falklands did nothing to stop the Brits from defeating the Argentinians; the same can be said of Ireland, over a century of war and British occupation with very little opposition from the states. I am surprised that you find US neutrality as something to praise as you have been against its isolationism before.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not praise US neutrality in the Falklands. In fact, being neutral between a democracy under attack and an aggressive dictatorship sets a dangerous precedent. And thinking that Israel has enough money to influence anything in the US is at best naive. Israel has not even 10 million citizens with not even the income level of Portugal. Unless of course you subscribe to the belief of one giant Jewish bankster hivemind secretly undermining US foreign policy. Pero no puedo creer que serías así de estupido y anti-judío. Worzelpete (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories...?
He's listed under "crimes against humanity" and "homophobes" despite the page not mentioning the former at all, and only providing a Simpsons quote as evidence for the latter. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Castro to debate the accusations, but if they're true it would be nice to have the page expand on them, and if they're false then the categories should be removed. 73.232.122.143 (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Castro wasn't too lenient on the gay community. Also see and.


 * "Crimes against humanity" is a bit more ambiguous, but is still highly arguable. Wikipedia defines it as "certain acts that are deliberately committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or an identifiable part of a population",


 * As pertains to this,   . Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Homophobes
i'm inclined to agree with the bon here. he can certainly be blamed for a lot of homophobic stuff, but he also put his hand for it and apologised for it. 'homophobe' here is not an entirely accurate description. . no idea about the racist epithet. you would think if are going categorise people with these terms, the article should have something to justify it. it currently has nothing. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. 17:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Homophobes category is vague. He certainly opposed gay rights in the 60s even when American liberals like Allen Ginsberg were telling him otherwise. But a lot of people opposed gay rights at the time; you could potentially put almost everyone born before e.g. 1930 in that category. That said, there is a case given above that he particularly maltreated gay people. Was he more anti-gay than most people, might be the standard, and most leaders even in oppressive regimes didn't put gay people in concentration camps. Accusing him of racism is also questionable when he did so much to oppose western imperialism in Africa, playing a major role in defeating apartheid South Africa in the ; without evidence I'd definitely remove racism. --Annanoon (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Context matters. Different times, different standards. I agree with and . Nerd (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ive removed both categories. anyone wants to put em back can make the article reflect the claims first. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A lack of criticism
Other than the categories this article's placed in there isn't a lot of criticism of Castro and all the messed up shit he did. Hell the section for his death makes it seem like anybody that even remotely opposes him is a wingnut. Shouldn't we have a section or something for all the human rights abuses that have happened while he was in charge of Cuba? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Evilatheistheathen / talk / contribs