2006-08-20 11:50:26 · 5 answers · asked by one 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is hard to say - but the world will be a worse place without him.
2006-08-20 11:56:03 · answer #1 · answered by BCOL CCCP 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He's a dictator. Of course Cuba would have been better off without him.
That being said, Cuba would also have been much better off if the US had a more enlightened policy towards the country.
Nixon knew what would happen after China was opened up. Too bad someone didn't think to do the same with Cuba long ago.
2006-08-20 14:42:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last allegedly "democratic" leader of Cuba was Bautista. Bautista was wholly corrupt and profligate. It is no wonder he was overthrown.
Castro on the other hand is, in a different way, corrupt. Anyone who speaks out against his rule is very quickly jailed and oftentimes "disappear" all together. Castro is truly a dictator, his government it totalitarian, controlling all facets of life from where the people work, how much they work, how much they earn, where they live, what they say, what they hear on the radio, what they read in the press. Even the children of Cubans become property of the state.
Yes, I think Cuba would be better off without Castro or any of his cronys.
2006-08-20 12:01:42 · answer #3 · answered by Albannach 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't live in Cuba so I don't know. Anyone else who gives an opinion should live or have lived in Cuba.
2006-08-20 12:02:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bastilla wasn't great, but still a helluvalot better than Castro.
2006-08-20 12:04:02 · answer #5 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋