They fled because they were criminals facing trial for war crimes. The only people who got the firing squad at la Cabaña were people who had worked for Batista's death squads, and had committed a crime such as rape, murder or torture.

I am not surprised that so many would flee to America pending trial for crimes against humanity, that's how America got some of its most dedicated employees at NASA.

As for Viet Nam, you're not making a lot of sense. All the liberals did was take money from their country, and you're attributing this to their success?

How does that work exactly? How does pillaging Viet Nam's national coffers somehow enrich them?

Because if so, then why was it not the same when the French pillaged them?

In the collected works of Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese revolutionaries went out and collected testimonies of what people were subjected to.

Vietnamese civilians reported how the French settlers would murder them wantonly, sometimes in broad daylight. How, even at the mere suspicion of being a Marxist, they would rape families and cook their dead bodies over a campfire.

In fact, it was a very ordinary method of execution without trial. The French would frequently use camp fires, cooking spits and industrial furnaces to kill natives who were suspected Marxists, as well as their children or family.

The only difference between the colonial plunder of yesterday, and the colonial plunder of today is the Marxist government.

By not having studied its historical context, you have in fact attributed Viet Nam's success to a material condition in which the distinctive characteristic is Marxism.

All you're saying is that Marxists can manage a free market better than liberals can.