>
>> You'd see Cuba come back to being a country of wealth as
>>they were back in the day.
>
>-Just wanted to clear something up:
>Cuba wasn't a "country of wealth" back in the day. There was
>alot of wealth there but it was controlled by a very small
>number of people...

I was never saying that they were super rich, but they were sending money all over the globe to fund rebellions and such, and they were doing fine at home with the export of sugar with no restrictions. It wasn't until the US started to restrict the amount of sugar that they bought from Cuba and then followed with the embargo, teamed with the demise of their strongest world allies (USSR), that they went to hell in a handbasket.

>Now Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates in Latin
>America, and one of the lowest rates of infant mortality.

I mentioned literacy as a high point for Fidel. I know that this is and was unheard of for a world leader. Are we in disagreement or are you just questioning my use of the term "wealthy". If that is the case, this is an issue of semantics.

--rhombus