NationStates Jolt Archive

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg

40 years ago, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara died, betrayed by an informant.

Good riddance.

Spit on the ground today and pretend it is his grave.

I appreciate him for his (unintentional) impact on pop-art.

I hope we will never have to walk the path of extremism again to achieve justice for the poor and oppressed in Latin America. Ernesto Guevara was an idealist, and his ideals weren´t evil. However, to resort to evil ways (violent, in any case) to achieve noble ends is as reprehensible as evil itself.

Even although I do not agree with the way he tried to force his beliefs through the continent, I do recognize his commitment to his cause. We need more true fighters like him, willing to go to any length to fight for their ideals.

He died proudly, doing what he believed was best for humanity, in a brave way. Although I loathe his image and the cult around him these days, I give him that.

I appreciate him for his (unintentional) impact on pop-art.


Indeed. The fact that he has become a successful and profitable commercial icon is the last laugh on communism.

I hope we will never have to walk the path of extremism again to achieve justice for the poor and oppressed in Latin America. Ernesto Guevara was an idealist, and his ideals weren´t evil. However, to resort to evil ways (violent, in any case) to achieve noble ends is as reprehensible as evil itself.


And when faced with violence, what should one do?

I'm sorry, I can't celebrate the anniversary of a revolutionary murderer, much like Lenin and Trotsky, regardless of their 'achievements'.

People who celebrate murderers and terrorists, no matter how "noble" their intent, worry me.

It is just a short step from saying "Che was a martyr for a good cause" to "Hitler wasn't so bad, he built nice roads".

There is a way to accomplish "revolution".

Terrorism is not that way.

The twilight days of a mass murderer were marked by failure and discomfort. Now his image is a capitalist money-making machine, the ultimate mockery of his goals and ideologies. It is just and good that this should be so.

What exactly did Che do?

I may not agree with the way he went about achieving his goals, but I do admire the man himself as an uncompromising idealist who really did want to improve the lot of the impoverished

What exactly did Che do?

He was a major participant in the Cuban Revolution. The problem was, he was a good rabble-rouser, not so good at administering things when they actually won.

So, the Castros funded his adventures inspiring revolution in various other countries around the world, at which he was, in fact, singularly unsuccesful. In the end, the CIA decided he was too dangerous to be wandering around and offed him.

People who celebrate murderers and terrorists, no matter how "noble" their intent, worry me.

Why?

What do you do on July 4th?


It is just a short step from saying "Che was a martyr for a good cause" to "Hitler wasn't so bad, he built nice roads".


No it isn't, that's just being absurd.

Though he did buit nice roads (even if it wasn't his idea) ;)

The roads were Albert Speers... the only Nazi who cried at the Nuremberg Trials when he heard about exactly what had been going on in the camps. Went on to design buildings in Israel for free as penance

What exactly did Che do?

Lined people up against a wall, declared them traitors to the revolution, and shot them, while his PR guys spun a positive image for him.

dp

What exactly did Che do?He was an Argentinean Doctor -from a wealthy/educated family- who saw that the established system was unfair.. and needed to change.
Yes we all think that sometimes, but he actually went and do something about it.

I hope we will never have to walk the path of violence* again to achieve justice for the poor and oppressed in Latin America. Ernesto Guevara was an idealist, and his ideals weren´t evil. However, to resort to evil ways (violent, in any case) to achieve noble ends is as reprehensible as evil itself. (*original word was extremism) Simon Bolivar, San Martin, Jose Antonio Sucre, Jorge Washington, Nelson Mandela, etc, etc , etc

I'm sorry, I can't celebrate the anniversary of a revolutionary murderer, much like Lenin and Trotsky, regardless of their 'achievements'.

One of the guys in the picture with Che after he got whacked was the uncle of a good friend of mine from law school.

So, let's not celebrate Che Guevera, but rather the members of the Bolivian military who got rid of that murderous piece of shit.

One of the guys in the picture with Che after he got whacked was the uncle of a good friend of mine from law school.

So, let's not celebrate Che Guevera, but rather the members of the Bolivian military who got rid of that murderous piece of shit.what picture?

He was a major participant in the Cuban Revolution. The problem was, he was a good rabble-rouser, not so good at administering things when they actually won.

So, the Castros funded his adventures inspiring revolution in various other countries around the world, at which he was, in fact, singularly unsuccesful. In the end, the CIA decided he was too dangerous to be wandering around and offed him.

Actually, the CIA wanted Che alive, whereas the Bolivian government wanted him dead. The contrast between the two goals is quite interesting, and the level of independence that might have existed.

He was an Argentinean Doctor -from a wealthy/educated family- who saw that the established system needed to Change.
Yes we all think that sometimes, but he actually went and do something about it.

By becoming commandant of the La Cabaña, and issuing extra-judicial orders for execution? By declaring, publicly, that jury trials were merely a "bourgeois luxury"? He did jack shit to make people's lives better, all he did was utilize the power of ideology to justify his sick, violent actions. He's got more in common with the Spanish Inquisition, than with Bolivar or Mandela.

Good fucking riddance. I hope he's having a miserable time roasting on a spit down in Hell. I'd have killed the putrid piece of slim myself (slowly and with a smile) were he alive today.

Good riddance to murderous rubbish. Cliche Guevara was a torturer, a murderer, and a thug.

what picture?

This one (and others from this series)

http://www.samizdata.net/~pdeh/che_guevara_corpse.jpg

One of the guys in the picture with Che after he got whacked was the uncle of a good friend of mine from law school.

So, let's not celebrate Che Guevera, but rather the members of the Bolivian military who got rid of that murderous piece of shit.

+10000

There should be a holiday to honor the people responsible for ventilating that gutter-rat piece of barely-human-shit and causing him to expire before he could kill more people and ruin more lives.

+10000

There should be a holiday to honor the people responsible for ventilating that gutter-rat piece of barely-human-shit and causing him to expire before he could kill more people and ruin more lives.


The funny (well, not funny, really) thing is that Che was totally ignorant of what was going on in Bolivia. The big landowners there realized that they couldn't really keep holding 90%+ of the land, so they had started a land reform process several years before Che came to town.

So, he encountered a peasantry that was puzzled by why they should join a revolution to get land as they were in the process of actually acquiring the land lawfully. He sort of wandered around the country until the Bolivian military caught him and put a couple of holes in his worthless body.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg

40 years ago, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara died, betrayed by an informant.

Good riddance. I should make it a point to find out where he's buried and take a well-deserved piss right then and there.

What exactly did Che do?

Didn't he have sex with a dolphin?

I can't say I mourn for such a Stalinistic mass murderer.

He's got more in common with the Spanish Inquisition, than with Bolivar or Mandela.like many other in this thread.. That point of view is pretty much Made in USA.

This one (and others from this series)

http://www.samizdata.net/~pdeh/che_guevara_corpse.jpgintersting, which one is him?

like many other in this thread.. That point of view is pretty much Made in USA.

You know what would be interesting? If you attempted to refute that point rather than dismissing it with a simple attack against the source. Seriously, some of us might be ignorant on the subject and would value your opinion on the matter.

I mean, the only thing I know about the guy is that he had sex with a dolphin..

meh..

lets start with what you know.
a US source of information told you he had sex with a dolphin??
if its a US source.. it Must be true :p

Actually it's libcom.org/enrager.net in-joke that's some kind of reference to the Motorcycle Diaries... Them crazy libertarian communists, eh?

I'm going to keep repeating it until enough people believe it's true..

Trilby63;13120356']You know what would be interesting? If you attempted to refute that point rather than dismissing it with a simple attack against the source. Seriously, some of us might be ignorant on the subject and would value your opinion on the matter.

I mean, the only thing I know about the guy is that he had sex with a dolphin..meh..

lets start with what you know.
a US source of information told you he had sex with a dolphin??
if its a US source.. it Must be true :p

Oops!...I did It Again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tYvl6tTdxI) :D

He was a major participant in the Cuban Revolution. The problem was, he was a good rabble-rouser, not so good at administering things when they actually won.

So, the Castros funded his adventures inspiring revolution in various other countries around the world, at which he was, in fact, singularly unsuccesful. In the end, the CIA decided he was too dangerous to be wandering around and offed him.

He was an Argentinean Doctor -from a wealthy/educated family- who saw that the established system needed to Change.
Yes we all think that sometimes, but he actually went and do something about it.
Ah, okay. Thanks.

So was he the originator of that "You'll be the first against the wall" joke, in that it was based on his actions?

Trilby63;13120302']Didn't he have sex with a dolphin?

I'm pretty sure its true.

Realistically, I was wondering if anybody does think his actions were just and if so, please explain. I can't say I know much about him except that its funny hes been commercialized. I only recently (a couple months ago) found out who killed him, but still don't know much of what he did.

I agree with many of Che's goals, and some of his philosophies about revolution. A true revolutionary must be motivated by great feelings of compassion.

However, I disagree vehemently with his actions. Summary executions and party dictatorships simply don't become of a man who said that he was motivated by "great feelings of love." Like so many people who set out to change the world with the best of intentions, power corrupted him, and he betrayed the very principles he said he was supporting.

Now he is ironically both an undeserving martyr and a consumeristic icon of youthful rebellion.

Trilby63;13120302']Didn't he have sex with a dolphin?I'm pretty sure its true.well.. good for you. ;)

On a side note.. If you believe the USmedia tidbits-of-info about those baddies, almost every enemy leader/president has multiple psychological and sexual complexes.. and most have venereal deceases.

Che was a true monster and it is a good thing the world is rid of him. He can burn in Hell.

I'm pretty sure its true.


I read that he wooed the poor porpoise with flowers and candlelight meals and the left the thing heart broken when he went off to do whatever the hell he did..

like many other in this thread.. That point of view is pretty much Made in USA.

So you deny his brutal murders as keeper of the La Cabana Fortress through sham-trials worthy of Stalin himself? His statement that he would have launched the Soviet Missiles at the States if he had control of them?

Face it, he was just another petty dictator with a cult of personality who took part in every part of another Stalinist regime.

The best thing you can say about him is that he's the subject of some decent songs.

intersting, which one is him?

I don't recall- my friend had several pictures in his photo album, and he pointed his uncle out, but this was a few years back.

So you deny his brutal murders as keeper of the La Cabana Fortress through sham-trials worthy of Stalin himself? His statement that he would have launched the Soviet Missiles at the States if he had control of them?

Face it, he was just another petty dictator with a cult of personality who took part in every part of another Stalinist regime.

I wouldn't expect a serious answer, Its OD2 we're talking about here... I haven't seen him do anything lately than blindly contradict people.

Trilby63;13120420']I read that he wooed the poor porpoise with flowers and candlelight meals and the left the thing heart broken when he went off to do whatever the hell he did..

Whats worse is that he never did call her back, and it turns out that the flowers were fake.

So you deny his brutal murders as..depends, do you deny the Brutal murders of Loyalists by Revolutionary forces?
.
His statement that he would have launched the Soviet Missiles at the States if he had control of them?The US media said that AhmedJihad stated: "I will wipe out Israel off the map".. If they can lie like that, while AhmedJihad is still alive and in charge.. Then It becomes difficult for me to believe what the US media sais about a down-and-out person.
.
Face it, he was just another petty dictator with a cult of personality ...He made history, and his name sells millions of flags and t-shirts, how many t-shirts your face sells? How many people have a flag of your face in his room?

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=che+Guevara&search=Search

depends, do you deny the Brutal murders of Loyalists by Revolutionary forces?

That's cute, but you're dodging the question. The Butcher of La Cabana oversaw the illegitimate and counterfactual show-trials and murders of as many as 550 Cubans at La Cabana Prison.

The US media said that AhmedJihad stated: "I will wipe out Israel off the map".. If they can lie like that, while AhmedJihad is still alive and in charge.. Then It becomes difficult for me to believe what the US media sais about a down-and-out person.

Given that the quote in quesiton was given to a British Communist paper, I don't care what you think about the US media, in this case.

quote]He made history, and his name sells millions of t-shirts, how many t-shirts your face sells?[/quote]

If all I can do is support an ideology of murder and opression by perpetuating it on T-shirts, I will feel quite dissapointed. Ernesto Guevara was and is no hero at all.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=che&search=Search

Okay? Who gives a fuck? Brittany Spears has more, that doesn't make her worth jack shit either.

are you pissed? Maybe thats what made you mess up the quote tags. :D

This would be funnier if you had not just done the same thing.

Now either answer the quesiton or move along, troll. Do you beleive it was acceptable for The Butcher of La Cabana to kill 550 Cubans in sham trials? Do you beleive it was acceptable for him to want to commit millions of other murders in the use of nuclear weapons? How can you call a murderer and a torturer a hero?

That's cute, but you're dodging the question. The Butcher of La Cabana oversaw the illegitimate and counterfactual show-trials and murders of as many as 550 Cubans at La Cabana Prison.



Given that the quote in quesiton was given to a British Communist paper, I don't care what you think about the US media, in this case.

quote]He made history, and his name sells millions of t-shirts, how many t-shirts your face sells?/quote]

If all I can do is support an ideology of murder and opression by perpetuating it on T-shirts, I will feel quite dissapointed. Ernesto Guevara was and is no hero at all.



Okay? Who gives a fuck? Brittany Spears has more, that doesn't make her worth jack shit either.


are you pissed? Maybe thats what made you mess up the quote tags. ;)
100 years from today.. when your name and my name.. and all the other NSG Che-haters names are forgotten..

His name will still be part of History. And there is nothing you can do about it.

100 years from today.. when your name and my name.. and all the other NSG Che-haters names are forgotten..

His name will still be part of History. And there is nothing you can do about it.

And he will still be a brutal murderer, slave to a broken and evil ideology, and he will be remembered as such. No cult of personality can take away the blood on his hands, no matter how many times fools for Stalinist and Leninist philosophy invoke him as a people's hero.

.......100 years from today.. when your name and my name.. and all the other NSG Che-haters names are forgotten..

His name will still be part of History. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Same can be said for Hitler, Dahmer, Bundy et al.

Your logic(?) says we should celebrate them as well?

Or maybe not Dahmer and Bundy because they didn't kill enough people to "rate"?

:rolleyes:

He's got more in common with the Spanish Inquisition, than with Bolivar or Mandela.

Thats not a fair statement about the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was generally a very progressive and fair court for its time.

Che on the other hand was human filth who deserved to be beheaded.

are you pissed? Maybe thats what made you mess up the quote tags. ;)
100 years from today.. when your name and my name.. and all the other NSG Che-haters names are forgotten..

His name will still be part of History. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Being in the history books and being remembered are two different things.

My Grandfather^7 is in the history books and not many people recognize his name.

100 years from today.. when your name and my name.. and all the other NSG Che-haters names are forgotten..

His name will still be part of History. And there is nothing you can do about it.


Meh, Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Caligula, Vlad Tepes, Rasputin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and dozens of other mass murderers' names live on.

So what? History remembers monsters because they are monsters.

But, to tell you the truth, I doubt people will remember Che 100 years from now. He was small fry by historical standards. At most, he'll be a footnote in some history book in a free and democratic Cuba in 2107.

Being in the history books and being remembered are two different things.

My Grandfather^7 is in the history books and not many people recognize his name.what is the name of your grandfather?

Thats not a fair statement about the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Inquisition was generally a very progressive and fair court for its time.

Che on the other hand was human filth who deserved to be beheaded.

I didn't expect someone to defend the Spanish Inquisition!

wait for it... wait for it...

Same can be said for Hitler, Dahmer, Bundy et al.

Your logic(?) says we should celebrate them as well?

Or maybe not Dahmer and Bundy because they didn't kill enough people to "rate"?

:rolleyes:meh, Whoever Dahmer and Bundy are?

Hitler is a recognizable name, but you cant sell millions of Flags and t-shirt with the face of Hitler because Hitler is universally considered evil.

I didn't expect someone to defend the Spanish Inquisition!

wait for it... wait for it...

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

wait is over

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter

I'm sure I must of gotten that quote from some place in the intertubes...but that's the first thing that came to me when reading this thread...

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!

wait is over

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/961/spanishinq0go.jpg

True. Quite true

meh, Whoever Dahmer and Bundy are?

Hitler is a recognizable name, but you cant sell millions of Flags and t-shirt with the face of Hitler because Hitler is universally considered evil.

Hitler is not "universally" considered evil.

There are populations who still worhip himas some sort of saviour of their race.

And yes, they sell plenty of t-shirts and other things bearing his likeness.

So, the question stands.

meh, Whoever Dahmer and Bundy are?

Hitler is a recognizable name, but you cant sell millions of Flags and t-shirt with the face of Hitler because Hitler is universally considered evil.

Except a great deal of nazi flags and other Hitler memorabilia are sold all the time.

Edit: beaten to the punch so I'll add something else.

Che had a really cool bandana and THAT my frinds is why lots of people like him, kinda like Hitler and his mustache before it went out of style.

There is a way to accomplish "revolution".

Terrorism is not that way.

Tell that to our founding fathers. They were the most bad-ass guerrillas ever.

:gundge:

never mind.

All this talk about hitler reminded me. The Brits were plotting operation foxley to assainate Hitler. they decided against it cos he was making such a balls up of WW2 he was helping them win it.

Hitler is not "universally" considered evil.what % of the population -would you say- considers Hitler evil?

20%?
70%?
90%?
95%?

Given that people can openly walk around with a pop-art Che displayed proudly on their chests make sme wonder what would happen if I did the same with Pinochet.

Both killed a lot of people in the name of their ideals.

what % of the population -would you say- considers Hitler evil?

20%?
70%?
90%?
95%?

A goodly portion, to be sure, among which I count myself, yet the point remains that it is NOT "universal".

Tell that to our founding fathers. They were the most bad-ass guerrillas ever.

:gundge:

No, not really. The actual fighting was started when back country farmers wouldn't let British troops through, and things went down hill from there. But for about a year, the colonies didn't actually declared independence, they still wanted to stay with Britain. The Founding Fathers finally decided that they were going to have a revolution more than a year after the fighting began. In fact, the fighting was part of the complaints they had with Britain. (They felt it was too gung-ho, and didn't give them a chance to stop.)

like many other in this thread.. That point of view is pretty much Made in USA.

Hardly. It was made by Che himself when he made such claims as jury trials being nothing more than a "bourgeois luxury", or saying that had he been the Premier of the USSR he'd have launched the Cuba missiles at the civilian population of the United States. Or perhaps, his tendency for extra-judicial killings, as evidenced by the testimony of Jose Vilasuso on the matter. Or, perhaps his imperialist tendencies, to force his ideology in other countries.

If anything, Che's image as some sort of idealist revolutionary hero is the artificial one. That's the one created by PR suits and spindoctors, not the other way around.

A goodly portion, to be sure, among which I count myself, yet the point remains that it is NOT "universal".If I put that number at 95% would you agree with me?

Che was a fool, a young idealist who would rather be off starting a revolution than dealing with the practicalities he claimed to want after one as Minister of Health. I respect and admire him greatly, but he did more to set Latin American liberation back 20 or more years that the CIA ever did. He believed the Guerrilla-Marxist ideal (and that's a contradiction in itself - Marx expected an advanced capitalism like today, not peasant guerrilla) that a liberalising capitalism only hides the iron hand in the velvet glove, so must be resisted to reveal that iron hand, so as the State cracks down, the undecided with suffer enough to resist and revolt.

What with, for F out loud :mad: If the peasantry lacked the wherewithal to rise up against a velvet glove 'oppression', how the buggery can they against the revealed iron fist? Who do the middle class side with? As things get worse, they side with the 'oppressors' because even if kicked out, they want to be seen as trustworthy not the 'traitors' they are being assumed. Fer F sake, Stalin should have shown those eejits that! He betrayed every Socialist principle ever imagined, yet even today, some fools see him as a Golden Age. People went to their death absolutely convinced that Comrade Stalin (and Mao) was so perfect that only lower echelons opposed ot him could be exploiting his name to kill them. They were probably right, but it never occurred to ask why Comrade Stalin and Mao let their name be abused so readily.

Che had some weird belief that people would not feel the same about the capitalist regimes they knew. In the end, his policy of strip the liberalisation to show Capitalism in its 'true colors' amounted to creating capitalism in the form he imagined through guerrilla harrassement, so he prevented liberalisation for a revolution that could never happen and even mad Marxist theory said could never happen under those feudal circumstances. Hero, yes. But fool hero like Don Quixote.

I doubt very many people here really know anything about Che and Cuba. I'm not going to into a history lesson though. It really is up to you to really research and simply read. Reading his wiki article and whatever pops up on google is not research. Che, himself, wrote tons.
It's very funny to hear people condemn Che, Cuba, and any leftist Latin American country. If you only knew the real history and misery that began when Europeans landed on this continent and has lasted up until today.
I've lived in The U.S. Most of my life, but have lived in Colombia and am now living in Venezuela. I've traveled to other Latin American countries as well. I can confidently say that 99.9% of Americans don't know anything about Latin America, The history, current events, politics.
Che was an exceptional human being that had courage, compassion, and love amongst other great qualities. His choice of violent revolution was not a decision based on himself, but based on history, culture, and the suffering of the people of Latin America. I know tons of people are going to jump on me for this, but Cuba is probably the only free nation on this planet. I wish people would read more and travel and open-up to other people.

If anything, Che's image as some sort of idealist revolutionary hero is the artificial one. That's the one created by PR suits..Wait.. are you telling me that the guerrillero PR suits are better than the ones hired by the US gov?

Is that what you are saying?

The Founding Fathers finally decided that they were going to have a revolution more than a year after the fighting began. In fact, the fighting was part of the complaints they had with Britain. mucho interesting..

Wait.. are you telling me that the guerrillero PR suits are better than the ones hired by the US gov?

Is that what you are saying?

Actually, Castro has, in the past, hired US PR firms, who are almost universally better advertisers than the US government.

Actually, Castro has, in the past, hired US PR firms, who are almost universally better advertisers than the US government.riiiight.. a relatively poor country is outbidding the US gov for the PR suits :rolleyes:

I bet the yearly Marketing Budget of McDonalds is several times more than anything Cuba can afford on a decade.

So you deny his brutal murders as keeper of the La Cabana Fortress through sham-trials worthy of Stalin himself? His statement that he would have launched the Soviet Missiles at the States if he had control of them?

Face it, he was just another petty dictator with a cult of personality who took part in every part of another Stalinist regime.

Che was certainly no Sandinista, but things in Central and South America weren't too good at the time, were they?

Yeah, he was a nut. But he wasn't a nut because he was a revolutionary, he was a nut because he was a nut.
Also, can anyone really live up (down?) to the Man of Steel?

I bet the yearly Marketing Budget of McDonalds is several times more than anything Cuba can afford on a decade.

But is McDonald's literacy rate as high? ;)

But is McDonald's literacy rate as high? ;)of course not.

snip

Way to let the side down.

you fucking retarded pieces of shit are such total disgusting
New Granada go shoot urselfs plz u fukin idiot and u2 potomac shoot urself in the balls over and over plz u fukin dipshit khan and attila? u must be the stupidest sack of shit on earth, ur parents must be clueless fucks to type that ur shit

all u fags dissin che need to go burn themselves alive u worthless jackasses

okay...the "Che is a revolutionary hero to the oppressed masses" side officially loses cause of this guy...+1 to the "Che Guevara is a dirty, Commie, Stalinist murderer" side

you fucking retarded pieces of shit are such total disgusting
New Granada go shoot urselfs plz u fukin idiot and u2 potomac shoot urself in the balls over and over plz u fukin dipshit khan and attila? u must be the stupidest sack of shit on earth, ur parents must be clueless fucks to type that ur shit

all u fags dissin che need to go burn themselves alive u worthless jackasses

Wow, off to a great start, eh YetSuma? First post out of the gate and you already sound like a moron. Some people come to message boards to get a feeling for other people's beliefs and to rationally state their own. You go to message boards to entertain a juvenile sense of humor. Now who's the loser?

Some people come to message boards to get a feeling for other people's beliefs and to rationally state their own.

Pff, no one does that these days, Travaria. It's all about the vulgar, violent, homophobic rants.

Hardly. It was made by Che himself when he made such claims as jury trials being nothing more than a "bourgeois luxury", or saying that had he been the Premier of the USSR he'd have launched the Cuba missiles at the civilian population of the United States.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. military has the ability to move past the jury trial phase straight to executions in times of war in cases of sedition on the part of their soldiers, no? Generally speaking, if your soldier disobeys a legitemate order on the battlefield, you don't usually stop the battle to initiate jury proceedings. Similarly, if the military were facing an insurrection in, say, Virginia, and they found a random person carrying messages between insurrectionary groups, would they not be entitled to shoot him, or would they be forced to offer a jury trial first?

The point is not that the people in this prison are soldiers guilty of on-the-field sedition, nor were they letter-carriers for the Batista regime. The point is, however, that they are strongly suspected of being insurrectionary forces in a country that has just undergone significant alterations in the dominant political order, that they probably have sympathizers in the civilian population, and that the new order needs to consolidate control very quickly. Far be it for me to speak the truth on the matter, but "luxury" does seem to be the word for what a jury trial in this case would be, because such a trial would be inconclusive, time-engaging, all while the credibility of the new regime to restore order is being slowly whittled away.

I would also point out that the United States had a 30-year history of propping up the regime that Gueverra's revolution had just displaced, and then it had just attempted to launch an astroturf insurrection against the standing government of Cuba. As a citizen of the United States, I don't like the idea of Gueverra using nukes, but as a person, I'm not surprised by the fantasizing given the circumstances.


Or perhaps, his tendency for extra-judicial killings, as evidenced by the testimony of Jose Vilasuso on the matter. Or, perhaps his imperialist tendencies, to force his ideology in other countries.

If anything, Che's image as some sort of idealist revolutionary hero is the artificial one. That's the one created by PR suits and spindoctors, not the other way around.

His extra-judicial killings are fairly common for countries trying to restore law-and-order after a revolution. What is atypical is his personal involvement with the affair; I don't recall Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot personally executing or disappearing people. Now, this could be read as a sign of bloodlust; it could also, especially in light of the testimony of people who knew him, be taken as a sign that he didn't want others to have blood on their hands for what his efforts were trying to do.

I'm not a communist, and I don't know the most about Che, but his efforts seem in the whole a) typical in kind of any government attempting to restore order post-revolution, but b) atypical in manner and scope: he wasn't attempting mass-executions, and he was personally overseeing and participating in what executions there were in a way that I don't recall any other 20th century revolutionary figure doing. Most of what he did strikes me as an attempt to maximize the a) part while minimizing the b) part, although again I'm hardly a Gueverra expert.

It also strikes me, Andalucia, that a great deal of your criticism stems from the unspoken assumption that any communist revolution is by definition an unjust revolution. It's the easiest way I can square why you're so Jonesed about Gueverra while not putting George Washington, who forcibly put down farmers with the army, or the United States, which expulsed a fairly large number of Tories to Canada post-revolution in not so friendly fashion in the same boat.

*Xenophobialand officially counters the embarrassment caused by YetSuma*

No it isn't, that's just being absurd.
You say that without backing it up with even, let's say, what you find absurd about it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg

40 years ago, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara died, betrayed by an informant.

And I say its a good thing the world was rid of a mass murder who did it "for the people" (looking at you, Joseph Stalin)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg

40 years ago, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara died, betrayed by an informant.

Cheers to that informant for putting this loser in the ground for good!

What they dont tell you is the number of people he killed and had killed by his orders for disagreeing with the government, what they dont tell you is school children been sent to work on farms for the government.

What they dont tell you is the number of people he killed and had killed by his orders for disagreeing with the government, what they dont tell you is school children been sent to work on farms for the government.and dont forget all teh sex with teh dolphins :D:D:D

And I say its a good thing the world was rid of a mass murder who did it "for the people" (looking at you, Joseph Stalin)

Is it just me, or are Che's various evils hugely exaggerated?
It is estimated that between 156 and 550 people were executed on Guevara's extra-judicial orders during this time.
I mean, compare him to the average southern hemisphere junta president (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet).

The number of lives destroyed by U.S. interventions in Latin America >>>>>>>> Che's extra-judicial killings

The number of lives destroyed by U.S. interventions in Latin America >>>>>>>> Che's extra-judicial killings

Certainly true.

Now try proving that to the right-wing.

The number of lives destroyed by U.S. interventions in Latin America >>>>>>>> Che's extra-judicial killings

Ah, the disappearances and death squads of the Banana Republic.

Certainly true.

Now try proving that to the right-wing.

To the right-wingers it was justified because it brought "democracy".

Certainly true.

Now try proving that to the right-wing.

Why is it okay in either case? The US should have focussed on preventing mass slaughters, rather than promoting agents of mass slaughter, and Che Guevara should have not been another authoritarian murderer acting as a proxy for Fidel Castro.

Why is it okay in either case?

It has mostly to do with the mentality that the ends justify the means. Thus, "justice" is served when the other guy is looking up the wrong end of the barrel.

This is the primary reason why violent revolution is a disgusting affair.

what is the name of your grandfather?

Angus McDonald
http://www.clandonald.org.uk/cdm06/cdm06a26.htm

Lord Dunmore's war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunmore's_War

http://thoseshirts.com/images/square-med-muerto.jpg

The number of lives destroyed by U.S. interventions in Latin America >>>>>>>> Che's extra-judicial killings

Che was of course not the only pro-communist of his type.

Shining Path, anyone?

Wait.. are you telling me that the guerrillero PR suits are better than the ones hired by the US gov?



Why do you think Soviet Communuism lasted for 70 years?

Certainly true.

Now try proving that to the right-wing.

One can prove that, but persuading them, it's another story. At some point, they'll scream "you deny the Holocaust" or "you are ideologically antiamerican" or "you eat babies" or some other totally out-of-place accusation.

what they dont tell you is school children been sent to work on farms for the government.

some facts about being a kid in Cuba, source CIA world factbook (www.cia.gov)

live birth (linked to poverty and medical care)

United States total: 6.37 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.02 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.68 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)

Cuba total: 6.04 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 6.76 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.26 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)

literacy (linked to education)

Cuba definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99.8%
male: 99.8%
female: 99.8% (2002 census)

United States definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99% (that is, 99.0%, note mine)
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

Cuba definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99.8%
male: 99.8%
female: 99.8% (2002 census)

Soviet census data also involved alot of nice stuff.



United States definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 99% (that is, 99.0%, note mine)
male: 99%
female: 99% (2003 est.)

Why did you highlight the term 'estimated' here?

some facts about being a kid in Cuba, source CIA world factbook (www.cia.gov)

live birth (linked to poverty and medical care)

United States total: 6.37 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 7.02 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.68 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)

Cuba total: 6.04 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 6.76 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.26 deaths/1,000 live births (2007 est.)



Cuba has the cleverness to be able to hide the truth of this fact in that the Cuban government has a policy of overbearing encouragement of abortions of at-risk pregnancies. Diseases that are often easily treated, such as HELLPS, are regularly subject to being aborted.

riiiight.. a relatively poor country is outbidding the US gov for the PR suits :rolleyes:

I bet the yearly Marketing Budget of McDonalds is several times more than anything Cuba can afford on a decade.

Two things:

During his visit to the United States between April 15 and April 26 1959, Fidel Castro had hired the finest Public Relations firm in the United States to coordinate a powerful charm offensive. While I cannot seem to find the name, I have found several references to the incident. This is important in that Castro utilized a PR firm to orchestrate his entire visit, not a single moment of public face time was he without instructions. This is only one instance in which Castro made use of modern PR and communications in the United States, and the glorification of Che was just part of it.

More than that, the Cuban government and the US government were never in bidding competition for any PR firm, the US government already had established sources for this sort of stuff, and had no need to go to the private sector.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro#Assumption_of_power
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/franqui3.htm

Beyond that, Cuba was not a "third world" country, rather, due to its nature as a close ally of the USSR, it is to be considered "second world". You must not forget the origin of those terms, dear. It received millions of Rubles a day from the Soviet government to pay for all sorts of government projects, as such money was never in short supply, up until 1991.

Cuba has the cleverness to be able to hide the truth of this fact in that the Cuban government has a policy of overbearing encouragement of abortions of at-risk pregnancies. Diseases that are often easily treated, such as HELLPS, are regularly subject to being aborted.

I have to contradict you, my friend. Looks, at the very least, like you chose the wrong example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HELLP_syndrome

excerpts:
****
HELLP syndrome is a life-threatening obstetric complication considered by many to be a variant of pre-eclampsia. Both conditions occur during the later stages of pregnancy, or sometimes after childbirth.

Rupture of the liver capsule and a resultant hematoma may occur. If the patient gets a seizure or coma, the condition has progressed into full-blown eclampsia.

The only effective treatment is delivery of the baby. Several medications have been investigated for the treatment of HELLP syndrome, but evidence is conflicting as to whether magnesium sulfate decreases the risk of seizures and progress to eclampsia. The DIC is treated with fresh frozen plasma to replenish the coagulation proteins, and the anemia may require blood transfusion. In mild cases, corticosteroids and antihypertensives (labetalol, hydralazine, nifedipine) may be sufficient. Intravenous fluids are generally required.
****

To sum it up, looks like HELLPS is a grave disease - what you call "abortion" is what wiki calls "the only effective treatment".
Also, remember that the embargo against Cuba includes medicinals, both from the US and from all other countries who also want to operate in the US market. I don't know whether the medicinals that are being investigated for HELLPS treatment are available in Cuba, but it may be that they aren't.

During his visit to the United States between April 15 and April 26 1959, Fidel Castro had hired the finest Public Relations
firm in the United States to coordinate a powerful charm offensive.
...


In the beginning, Fidel had no anti-american stances, iirc. He actually expected US support for the anti-Batista movement.

Beyond that, Cuba was not a "third world" country, rather, due to its nature as a close ally of the USSR, it is to be considered "second world".
It was third world, or if you prefer, a US colony de facto, before the revolution.
Compare the living standards or the rich/poor differences in Cuba and, let's say, Colombia or Brazil. While not "liberal" (in the european meaning of it), Cuba has better minimal living standards, housing, medical care and education.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the U.S. military has the ability to move past the jury trial phase straight to executions in times of war in cases of sedition on the part of their soldiers, no? Generally speaking, if your soldier disobeys a legitemate order on the battlefield, you don't usually stop the battle to initiate jury proceedings. Similarly, if the military were facing an insurrection in, say, Virginia, and they found a random person carrying messages between insurrectionary groups, would they not be entitled to shoot him, or would they be forced to offer a jury trial first?

The difference being, though, that in this instance these executions were not carried out in the field, and they were not active insurrectionists. They were usually low-level politicians and military officers who had not had the resources to flee to Miami at the time of the revolution. They had been detained, often without struggle, by revolutionary forces, and had been sent to the most secure prison on the island, La Cabaña. There they were detained for extended periods of time until show trials were held, in which the verdict was determined beforehand, often by Che himself.

The point is not that the people in this prison are soldiers guilty of on-the-field sedition, nor were they letter-carriers for the Batista regime. The point is, however, that they are strongly suspected of being insurrectionary forces in a country that has just undergone significant alterations in the dominant political order, that they probably have sympathizers in the civilian population, and that the new order needs to consolidate control very quickly. Far be it for me to speak the truth on the matter, but "luxury" does seem to be the word for what a jury trial in this case would be, because such a trial would be inconclusive, time-engaging, all while the credibility of the new regime to restore order is being slowly whittled away.

Quite on the contrary. These individuals were no longer in a position to further influence Cuban policy, or the opinions of the Cuban polity. They were securely locked up inside the La Cabaña Fortress, where they were being safely detained. There was no specific reason to execute them besides Guevara's own personal bloodlust, and the "revolutionary zeal" of his comrades. These are not emergency proceedings in the field, these were orchestrated and planned executions of political prisoners.

I would also point out that the United States had a 30-year history of propping up the regime that Gueverra's revolution had just displaced, and then it had just attempted to launch an astroturf insurrection against the standing government of Cuba. As a citizen of the United States, I don't like the idea of Gueverra using nukes, but as a person, I'm not surprised by the fantasizing given the circumstances.

And? That justifies desiring that millions of people should die in a nightmarish nuclear holocaust? If anything this proves Guevara's status as a hard-line ideologue, his religious fervor for the cause, and vindictive and violent nature.



His extra-judicial killings are fairly common for countries trying to restore law-and-order after a revolution. What is atypical is his personal involvement with the affair; I don't recall Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot personally executing or disappearing people. Now, this could be read as a sign of bloodlust; it could also, especially in light of the testimony of people who knew him, be taken as a sign that he didn't want others to have blood on their hands for what his efforts were trying to do.

And this justifies his actions, and the support he receives from those who deify him, how?

I would argue quite differently based on his enthusiasm for having executions carried out, and that his personal involvement was not universal in the executions carried out at that location, he rather opted to participate.



I'm not a communist, and I don't know the most about Che, but his efforts seem in the whole a) typical in kind of any government attempting to restore order post-revolution, but b) atypical in manner and scope: he wasn't attempting mass-executions, and he was personally overseeing and participating in what executions there were in a way that I don't recall any other 20th century revolutionary figure doing. Most of what he did strikes me as an attempt to maximize the a) part while minimizing the b) part, although again I'm hardly a Gueverra expert.


To paraphrase Vilasuso, the proceedings occured without even the most basic elements of a fair hearing. Guevara had already decided who should die, well before the proceedings had been initiated. When he oversaw the appeals board, there was not a single conviction overturned. Vilasuso's own testimony on the matter is convincing enough of Guevara's cold and calculated brutality.

It also strikes me, Andalucia, that a great deal of your criticism stems from the unspoken assumption that any communist revolution is by definition an unjust revolution.

Then you obviously don't understand my motivations. I have long felt that, in its early days both the Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions were not too far off base, that despotic or brutal colonial regimes had openly oppressed the people of these lands for far too long, and that change was desperately needed, change in nearly any direction. Where I diverge from these movements is in their subsequent assimilation of the tactics and methods of the previous regimes in order to guarantee their own power. That they claimed democracy all the way to the top, and once they were there, they tossed it to the curb. They are violent, opportunist hypocrites whose only goal is to maintain themselves in power, much as any other despotic regime.

It's the easiest way I can square why you're so Jonesed about Gueverra while not putting George Washington, who forcibly put down farmers with the army, or the United States, which expulsed a fairly large number of Tories to Canada post-revolution in not so friendly fashion in the same boat.

What would the relevance of the behaviors of the American founding fathers be? This thread is about Che Guevara, his actions and the bizarre deification that he has been the beneficiary of since his death. The actions of the American founding fathers have absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

In the beginning, Fidel had no anti-american stances, iirc. He actually expected US support for the anti-Batista movement.

And he should have received it, but for the fact that he met with Dick Nixon, who was a vindictive douchebag all around, and not the congenial Eisenhower. Nixon loathed Castro for personal reasons, and he managed to turn those personal biases into national policy.

Beyond that, though, Castro was being constantly encouraged to move closer to the USSR by his top two lieutenants, Raul and Guevara. While Fidel may have started out hoping for positive relations with the US, his associates actively sought the opposite goal.

It was third world, or if you prefer, a US colony de facto, before the revolution.

Actually, pre-revolution Cuba had a higher standard of living than did many western European countries. It had higher literacy, a better medical service with lower infant mortality rates, higher rates of automobile, radio and television ownership than Spain. There were more television and radio stations, as well as more newspapers, prior to the revolution. Since then, life has stagnated in Cuba, there is little economic growth, and people live and work largely as they did in 1958.

Compare the living standards or the rich/poor differences in Cuba and, let's say, Colombia or Brazil. While not "liberal" (in the european meaning of it), Cuba has better minimal living standards, housing, medical care and education.

Yet Cuba started off far better off than any of these countries, who are rapidly catching up. More than that, there's more to quality of life than the minimal standards. The mean and median quality of life needs also to be accounted for, and the UN HDR statistics represent a fairly accurate picture when discussing the quality of life of the average citizen.

http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/

Why did you highlight the term 'estimated' here?

Because the CIA labeled the data about Cuba as "census" while the data about the USA are just an "estimate".
Also, it means that, while Cuba does a "census" about the literacy of its citizens, the USA don't have reliable data, just estimates - we might argue that the literacy ratio isn't one of the top priorities of the US government.

Main Entry: cen·sus
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre
1 : a count of the population and a property evaluation in early Rome
2 : a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically : a periodic governmental enumeration of population

Main Entry: 1es·ti·mate
Pronunciation: 'es-t&-"mAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology: Latin aestimatus, past participle of aestimare to value, estimate
1 archaic a : ESTEEM b : APPRAISE
2 a : to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of b : to determine roughly the size, extent, or nature of c : to produce a statement of the approximate cost of

I have to contradict you, my friend. Looks, at the very least, like you chose the wrong example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HELLP_syndrome

excerpts:
****
HELLP syndrome is a life-threatening obstetric complication considered by many to be a variant of pre-eclampsia. Both conditions occur during the later stages of pregnancy, or sometimes after childbirth.

Rupture of the liver capsule and a resultant hematoma may occur. If the patient gets a seizure or coma, the condition has progressed into full-blown eclampsia.

The only effective treatment is delivery of the baby. Several medications have been investigated for the treatment of HELLP syndrome, but evidence is conflicting as to whether magnesium sulfate decreases the risk of seizures and progress to eclampsia. The DIC is treated with fresh frozen plasma to replenish the coagulation proteins, and the anemia may require blood transfusion. In mild cases, corticosteroids and antihypertensives (labetalol, hydralazine, nifedipine) may be sufficient. Intravenous fluids are generally required.
****

To sum it up, looks like HELLPS is a grave disease - what you call "abortion" is what wiki calls "the only effective treatment".
Also, remember that the embargo against Cuba includes medicinals, both from the US and from all other countries who also want to operate in the US market. I don't know whether the medicinals that are being investigated for HELLPS treatment are available in Cuba, but it may be that they aren't.

The treatment is actually very simple, it includes inducing labor early, blood transfusions and other basic medical treatments: I ought to know, my birth was marked by this affliction. This was nearly 22 years ago, when the pioneering work on the condition was done. These procedures were undertaken by by mother's OBGYN, and both her and (obviously) I survived. And while the efficacy of the use of medicines on this condition is questionable, there certainly are treatments available. Knowing the claims of the quality of the Cuban health system, surely this should be within their reach.

Because the CIA labeled the data about Cuba as "census" while the data about the USA are just an "estimate".
Also, it means that, while Cuba does a "census" about the literacy of its citizens, the USA don't have reliable data, just estimates - we might argue that the literacy ratio isn't one of the top priorities of the US government.

Main Entry: cen·sus
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from censEre
1 : a count of the population and a property evaluation in early Rome
2 : a usually complete enumeration of a population; specifically : a periodic governmental enumeration of population

Main Entry: 1es·ti·mate
Pronunciation: 'es-t&-"mAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology: Latin aestimatus, past participle of aestimare to value, estimate
1 archaic a : ESTEEM b : APPRAISE
2 a : to judge tentatively or approximately the value, worth, or significance of b : to determine roughly the size, extent, or nature of c : to produce a statement of the approximate cost of

Actually, the US carries out a Constitutionally mandated census every ten years. The nature of the fact that an estimate is provided is due to the fact that it was extrapolated from the census data collected three years previous.

And he should have received it, but for the fact that he met with Dick Nixon, who was a vindictive douchebag all around, and not the congenial Eisenhower. Nixon loathed Castro for personal reasons, and he managed to turn those personal biases into national policy.

Beyond that, though, Castro was being constantly encouraged to move closer to the USSR by his top two lieutenants, Raul and Guevara. While Fidel may have started out hoping for positive relations with the US, his associates actively sought the opposite goal.

Yet Raul and el Che never tried to replace Fidel - many argue that el Che left Cuba because of dissent with Fidel. So, if the US weren't led by douchebags like Nixon or Saint:rolleyes: JFK (Pig Bay and Vietnam were his ideas, after all), maybe Cuba would just have become a social democracy and not a mono-partitical state... ("and the official language will be"... let's see if you can catch the quote!)

from
Prosecutor: Tell the court why you think he is a traitor to this country.
Miss America: I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.



Actually, pre-revolution Cuba had a higher standard of living than did many western European countries. It had higher literacy, a better medical service with lower infant mortality rates, higher rates of automobile, radio and television ownership than Spain.
This is a suicide quote... Spain, at the time, was under a fascist dictatorship, wasn't it? It would have been quite more impressive if you had said "Sweden" or "Switzerland"...

The mean and median quality of life needs also to be accounted for, and the UN HDR statistics represent a fairly accurate picture when discussing the quality of life of the average citizen.

Average life standard isn't as important as the minimum standard and the Gini index (the lower, the less differencies between rich and poor). At least in my opinion, a country should be judged by how the poorest live - after all, who said "what you did to the smallest of my brothers, you did to me" (more or less...) . I feel so cattocomunista now... ;)

Actually, the US carries out a Constitutionally mandated census every ten years. The nature of the fact that an estimate is provided is due to the fact that it was extrapolated from the census data collected three years previous.

In this case, I stand corrected and concede the point.
Hence, the CIA data means that the Cuban literacy rate is however higher than the USA one. How can this be? Wrong policies on USA part, I think.

I know tons of people are going to jump on me for this, but Cuba is probably the only free nation on this planet.

I'm not going to jump on you. I'm just going to laugh at your ignorance and naivete.

In this case, I stand corrected and concede the point.
Hence, the CIA data means that the Cuban literacy rate is however higher than the USA one. How can this be? Wrong policies on USA part, I think.

It's actually linked to ESL immigration, and not to any particular government education policy.

Che was a legend; an inspiration to millions.

During his visit to the United States between April 15 and April 26 1959, Fidel Castro had hired the finest Public Relations firm in the United States to coordinate a powerful charm offensive.1950-2007
How much has Cuba invested in Marketing, and now compare that figure to US expensive expenses?? (note: the word expensive was not needed.. but i did put it anyways)

Also, how much did CHE pay for the sex with the Dolphins? :D

Show me the money.

i've only one thing to say VIVA EL CHE
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1208/919661126_da0e5c95ae.jpg

El Che lives Forever.

i've only one thing to say VIVA EL CHE

Yet Raul and el Che never tried to replace Fidel - many argue that el Che left Cuba because of dissent with Fidel. So, if the US weren't led by douchebags like Nixon or Saint:rolleyes: JFK (Pig Bay and Vietnam were his ideas, after all), maybe Cuba would just have become a social democracy and not a mono-partitical state...
I'm not gonna disagree with you that the initial policies of the US towards Cuba were poorly designed, because they were. What isn't justified is the image that Che Guevara has had develop around his personality since his death. Pop culture has turned him into a hero, with a near cult following in some circles. Something that, due to his inhumane and incompetent actions he does not deserve to be treated as.


("and the official language will be"... let's see if you can catch the quote!)
from
Prosecutor: Tell the court why you think he is a traitor to this country.
Miss America: I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the president and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.

Sounds like the types of trials Guevara presided over :D.



This is a suicide quote... Spain, at the time, was under a fascist dictatorship, wasn't it? It would have been quite more impressive if you had said "Sweden" or "Switzerland"...

Well, my selection of Spain had two purposes, first to show that there are countries that were worse off than Cuba in 1958, who are now far better off than Cuba, and that I wanted to highlight the irony in that the former colony was better off than its original colonizer.

But there were other countries in western Europe with lower standards of living than 1958 Cuba as well, I just want to make sure I get the right one's and I cannot recall exactly what the case was.


Average life standard isn't as important as the minimum standard and the Gini index (the lower, the less differencies between rich and poor). At least in my opinion, a country should be judged by how the poorest live - after all, who said "what you did to the smallest of my brothers, you did to me" (more or less...) . I feel so cattocomunista now... ;)

I would argue that worst-case-scenarios are not entirely useful on their own, because, sure, the minimum may be at level x, but the maximum is not too far above that. As such, minimum standard and the Gini should be taken into consideration, but they are not the sole factors to consider.

1950-2007
How much has Cuba invested in Marketing, and now compare that figure to US expensive expenses?? (note: the word expensive was not needed.. but i did put it anyways)

That's not readily available info, but...

To prove my point that just spending more on marketing doesn't mean a guarantee of victory, I would add that even though Microsoft has historically swamped Apple in marketing expenditures, who has the greater OS product share? And yet, there are still people who use Apple, or even Linux, which doesn't really go for that whole traditional marketing thing. You can market all you want, but if there's competition, some people will opt for that competition.

Also, how much did CHE pay for the sex with the Dolphins? :D
Two pesos, three yen and a mercury dime.

Show me the money.[/QUOTE]

I can't, that's the private matters of the marketing firms and their clients.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1208/919661126_da0e5c95ae.jpg

El Che lives Forever.

http://www.freedomfight.net/images/Che%20photos/che%20dead.jpg

Not really, thank goodness.

I can't.What is your best guess?

Would you say (1950-2007) Cuba -PR suits- expenses are 10% of the USA -PR suits- expenses?

5% ?
1% ?
0.1% ?
0.01% ?
0.0001% ?

take a guess.. anything.. give us anything at all.. do your best.

i've only one thing to sayVIVA EL CHE

http://cache.spreadshirt.com/users/63000/62441/motives/62441_1307632_big.gif

Che was a legend; an inspiration to millions.

And a lover of dolphins.

http://memehuffer.typepad.com/meme_huffer/images/revolutionariesmotivaional.jpg

Three cheers for Che!
HURRAH!
HURRAH!
HURRAH!

People who celebrate murderers and terrorists, no matter how "noble" their intent, worry me.

It is just a short step from saying "Che was a martyr for a good cause" to "Hitler wasn't so bad, he built nice roads".

There is a way to accomplish "revolution".

Terrorism is not that way.

anyone who compares Che to Hitler should be banned from the forums for a week for moronism.

what exactly is the objection to che from some of you yanks? cant be the fact he killed people, every political figure of note has. far fewer cubans died under him than batista. are you really that violently reactionary to anyone who dares try and alleviate poverty? its fairly sterotypical bullshit to be fair.

anyone who compares Che to Hitler should be banned from the forums for a week for moronism.

what exactly is the objection to che from some of you yanks? cant be the fact he killed people, every political figure of note has. far fewer cubans died under him than batista. are you really that violently reactionary to anyone who dares try and alleviate poverty? its fairly sterotypical bullshit to be fair.

Have you ever seen a T-shirt with a picture of Batista on it? How about Samoza or Pinochet? I strongly doubt that's the case.

Everyone recognizes and knows that they were corrupt, murderous douchebags. Che too, was a murderous douchebag, he just has the benefit of being quite stylish. Extremely superficially he's quite the romantic hero, and that's the perception that has been spread. When we see him in Evita we don't see the murderous and bloodthirsty Commandant of La Cabaña, we see an entirely different character. His legacy has been whitewashed by those who deify him, and it's disgusting.

El Che lives Forever.

Interesting that you choose a WWP sign... considering that along with Che Guevara, they also admire Mao Tse-Tung and support North Korea.

anyone who compares Che to Hitler should be banned from the forums for a week for moronism.

what exactly is the objection to che from some of you yanks? cant be the fact he killed people, every political figure of note has. far fewer cubans died under him than batista. are you really that violently reactionary to anyone who dares try and alleviate poverty? its fairly sterotypical bullshit to be fair.

Che was a psychopathic thug who cared only for power and self-glorification. He had the reverse-Midas touch: every thing he touched turned to shit.

He is a good example of the deluded, self-righteous rich-kid leftist. I get a smile on my face every time I see his bullet-riddled corpse.

Che was a psychopathic thug who cared only for power and self-glorification. He had the reverse-Midas touch: every thing he touched turned to shit.

He is a good example of the deluded, self-righteous rich-kid leftist. I get a smile on my face every time I see his bullet-riddled corpse.

inane stuff. revisionism at its nastiest.

I doubt very many people here really know anything about Che and Cuba. I'm not going to into a history lesson though. It really is up to you to really research and simply read. Reading his wiki article and whatever pops up on google is not research. Che, himself, wrote tons.
It's very funny to hear people condemn Che, Cuba, and any leftist Latin American country. If you only knew the real history and misery that began when Europeans landed on this continent and has lasted up until today.
I've lived in The U.S. Most of my life, but have lived in Colombia and am now living in Venezuela. I've traveled to other Latin American countries as well. I can confidently say that 99.9% of Americans don't know anything about Latin America, The history, current events, politics.
Che was an exceptional human being that had courage, compassion, and love amongst other great qualities. His choice of violent revolution was not a decision based on himself, but based on history, culture, and the suffering of the people of Latin America. I know tons of people are going to jump on me for this, but Cuba is probably the only free nation on this planet. I wish people would read more and travel and open-up to other people.

Okay.. Love+courage+etc warm fuzzy feelings=mass murder? Something doesn't add up...

Okay.. Love+courage+etc warm fuzzy feelings=mass murder? El Che
Courageous? of course. just like the Insurgents.
mass murderer? of course NOT.
.
Something doesn't add up... then check your sources. For once try some neutral sources, try German or Indian sources.

El Che
Courageous? of course. just like the Insurgents.
mass murderer? of course NOT.
What about the firsthand testimony of witnesses? Credible, provable eye witnesses like Father Arzuaga or Vilasuso (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/witness/LaCabana.html) testify to his penchant for the extrajudicial killings of detained prisoners. The construction of Che's myth, and the truth of the matter, his incompetence and his brutality, is discussed in this fine article from the New Republic (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535).


then check your sources. For once try some neutral sources, try German or Indian sources.

So, because they're American sources they're automatically illegitimate? Or are you the one with the bias?

Seriously, dude. There's enough US sources out there willing to fellate Che simply because of the image that's been constructed around him. Hell, I just did a check of German language websites about Che Guevara, and not a single one of the five I looked at even mentioned his time as the Commandant of La Cabana. Do I smell self-censorship on the part of your "neutral" sources?

Murderer. May he rot in hell.

So, because they're American sources they're automatically illegitimate? Or are you the one with the bias?
Neutral means no Cuba or USA sources
.
Or are you the one with the bias?To find out if I am the biased one, check those German/Indian/Philippines/Ecuador/Spain/Italian/French/Singapore/etc/etc/etc..
If most of these sources tell you the same (US like) stories about Che.. Then maybe I am off the mark.
.
Hell, I just did a check of German language websites about Che Guevara, and not a single one of the five I looked at even mentioned his time as the Commandant of La Cabana. Do I smell self-censorship on the part of your "neutral" sources?

kudos for looking at neutral sources.. http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
Diversifying your sources (for some politicized subjects) is going to make you more aware.

http://memehuffer.typepad.com/meme_huffer/images/revolutionariesmotivaional.jpg

Absolutely tragic isn't it?

Yay! Enough vitriol to melt the faces of a lot of children, in this thread.

Yay! Enough vitriol to melt the faces of a lot of children, in this thread.

I've seen far, far worse.

Pop culture has turned him into a hero
Even worse than that: while leftist culture has viewed el Che as an hero (and this is at least understandable, isn't it), pop (un)culture has turned him into a marketing icon.



Sounds like the types of trials Guevara presided over :D.

Boo! You cannot even recognize Woody Allen's "Bananas" !!! Shame on you;)



Well, my selection of Spain had two purposes, first to show that there are countries that were worse off than Cuba in 1958, who are now far better off than Cuba, and that I wanted to highlight the irony in that the former colony was better off than its original colonizer.
Ok... now who HAD had incompetent kings, french invasions, a civil war AND a fascist dictatorship running in 1958?
Who IS having a 50-years-long embargo?

...this somewhat modifies perspectives, doesn't it?;)

I'm not saying that Cuba is paradise on earth, I'm just saying that it isn't hell on earth as many people claim... expecially US politicians willing to catch the vote of the cuban-americans. Many countries with similar backgrounds and different recent history are faring a lot worse than Cuba.

Anyway, it is a pleasure to debate with you.

To find out if I am the biased one, check those German/Indian/Philippines/Ecuador/Spain/Italian/French/Singapore/etc/etc/etc

Germany, India, Philippines, Ecuador, Spain, Italy, France, Singapore... all parts of Unamerica, didn't you know that? ;)

Yes, all the world hates America. Also many people in American territory hate America - all those katholix, j00z, m00zlimz, radikulz, librulz, kommiez, n00yorkarz, feminist witches, devil-worshipurz... all part of the Unamerican Conspiracy!:rolleyes:

Germany, India, Philippines, Ecuador, Spain, Italy, France, Singapore... all parts of Unamerica, didn't you know that? ;)

Yes, all the world hates America. Also many people in American territory hate America - all those katholix, j00z, m00zlimz, radikulz, librulz, kommiez, n00yorkarz, feminist witches, devil-worshipurz... all part of the Unamerican Conspiracy!:rolleyes:

Venezuela and Eucador are part of America, no?. Oh, well, no. America is comprised of 52 states and some other territories that aren't in America, right? Oh, no, wait. South America isn't part of America, the name is just a coincidence. America is a country situated in North America, right? I mean, America is part of a part of America, no?

I'm confused.

Venezuela and Eucador are part of America, no?. Oh, well, no. America is comprised of 52 states and some other territories that aren't in America, right? Oh, no, wait. South America isn't part of America, the name is just a coincidence. America is a country situated in North America, right? I mean, America is part of a part of America, no?

I'm confused.

No it's simple. Venezuela and Ecuador are in Unamerica-Close, France and China are in Unamerica-Far, Australia is in Unamerica-Downunder.;);)

No it's simple. Venezuela and Ecuador are in Unamerica-Close, France and China are in Unamerica-Far, Australia is in Unamerica-Downunder.;);)

Oh, I get it now, for sure that Unabomber guy was from some part of Unamerica and hence his name, right?

You can't just blame someone for being nationalist/supremacist when your forefathers name your nation after the continent it is contained, and give you a citizenship named on the continent too, refusing to give the same name to the other inhabitants of said continent, no? It is just like...built from birth.

Absolutely tragic isn't it?I dont mind..

Its the price of , being part of History, Its the price of being an Icon.

besides, someone has to manufacture the t-shorts and flags, someone has to drive the trucks to the shopping centers, some workers are feeding their families thanks to the power of the Icon.

its all good.
*opens a Yahoo search for "Tshirt cuba made Che" * :D

"Neutral" sources my ass. Don't like a source? Say it isn't "neutral". Goddamn 'liberal' hypocrites.

Germany, India, Philippines, Ecuador, Spain, Italy, France, Singapore... all parts of Unamerica, didn't you know that? ;)

Yes, all the world hates America. Also many people in American territory hate America - all those katholix, j00z, m00zlimz, radikulz, librulz, kommiez, n00yorkarz, feminist witches, devil-worshipurz... all part of the Unamerican Conspiracy!:rolleyes:
More whinging from a pathetic, sad little Eurocommie. "America huwt my wittle feelings :(" They should put you people in circuses over here.

*opens a Yahoo search for "Tshirt cuba made Che" * :Dfound cool t-shirts..

and this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/B678-CUBA-ERNESTO-CHE-GUEVARA-20-STAMPS-BLOCK-1988_W0QQitemZ160166233067QQihZ006QQcategoryZ3496QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://i6.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/bb/8d/4d52_1.JPG

Oh, I get it now, for sure that Unabomber guy was from some part of Unamerica and hence his name, right?
Of course.;)

You can't just blame someone for being nationalist/supremacist when your forefathers name your nation after the continent it is contained, and give you a citizenship named on the continent too, refusing to give the same name to the other inhabitants of said continent, no? It is just like...built from birth.

To make an example, let's say that I, as EU citizen, suddenly refuse to call the Swiss, or the Norse, or the Croats "europeans". We would all think "what an idiocy"... wouldn't we, neh?

"Neutral" sources my ass. Don't like a source? Say it isn't "neutral". Goddamn 'liberal' hypocrites.

Isn't it exactly what you're doing? Goddamn 'right-wing' hypocrites.

More whinging from a pathetic, sad little Eurocommie. "America huwt my wittle feelings :(" They should put you people in circuses over here.

1."whinging"... excuse me? Was I "fretfully complaining" about something? I don't think so. I was sarcastically commentating the standard US right-wing views about everything that isn't US right-wing. Thank you for the practical demonstration, it will earn you an "A+" in "show and tell".

2."pathetic". I don't think I put a lot of "pathos" in my previous posts, if you know what I mean.

3."sad". Actually, I'm quite happy, thank you.

4."little". No, sadly I don't think that I qualify as "little", being 1,90 m tall and weighing more than 100 kg.

5."Eurocommie". Yes. And proud. I stated it many, many times. If that's all you can say...

6."wittle". From the Merriam-Webster online:
Suggestions for wittle:
1. whittle
2. wittol
3. wattle
4. white oil
5. what all
6. wintle
7. whitely
8. wetly
9. witte
10. white sale
11. white cell
12. white whale
Hence, do yourself a favour: learn english. If it was a poor attempt at mimicking a "french" accent, well, learn geography and read my location.

7.With some effort, "America hurt my *whitely?witte?white whale?* feelings". No it didn't, it can't. I have no feelings as I'm a heartless and godless Eurocommie.

8.The best part, "put people in a circus over here". Yeah, right, that's usually the way you teach "democracy" and "human rights" in Guantanamo and Abu Grahib. (sorry for the many, other peace-loving and rights-respecting americans, but this guy really deserved it...)

So, really, Mr."Imperial Brazil", do yourself a favour and learn some manners. Anyway, be reassured that I won't waste any more of my time with you.

Neutral means no Cuban or USA sources

So, while it's important to have diverse sources and opinions, disqualifying sources and opinions simply because of their geographic location of origin is absolutely retarded. Just because they have the most directly visible stakes in the matter does not disqualify them from validity or importance.

In fact, I voulf argue that because there is a direct stake in the matter, they have the most experience with the topic at hand, and that is where most of the expertise on the matter comes from. They have the first hand experience, and direct sources and witnesses that these other countries would not have. Your point of view on where the "neutrality" of sources originates is god awful. There's people who have a stake in this debate from Germany, India, the Philippines, Ecuador, Spain, Itlay, France, Singapore, etc., etc., etc.



To find out if I am the biased one, check those German/Indian/Philippines/Ecuador/Spain/Italian/French/Singapore/etc/etc/etc..
If most of these sources tell you the same (US like) stories about Che.. Then maybe I am off the mark.

What relevance does this have on the actual facts of the matter anyways? This is purely ludicrous, this bizarre geographic fixation you have on this matter. The opinions of the experts on this matter are not uniform or monolithic, they are not automatically going to support one point of view or another. There's people on both sides of this discussion from both of these places, so while I agree a diverse selection of sources is important, the breakdown of that diversity need not be geographic.


kudos for looking at neutral sources..
That's the thing, they aren't neutral sources. They are sources with an agenda, they wish to achieve an ideological point, just like you are attempting, and failing, to do.

That's the thing, they aren't neutral sources. Neutral sources are (X10) less likely to have a bias, they are (X10) less likely to spin or deform the facts.

Let me give you an example: when its about the Kashmir conflicts, I consider Indian and Pakistani sources as not Neutral.
So when it about Kashmir issues, I would consider US and Cuban govs to be neutral sources.

Neutral sources are (X10) less likely to have a bias, they are (X10) less likely to spin or deform the facts.

Let me give you an example: when its about the Kashmir conflicts, I consider Indian and Pakistani sources as not Neutral.
So when it about Kashmir issues, I would consider US and Cuban govs to be neutral sources.

Except there are sources from both countries that have absolutely nothing to do with their governments, in fact, their opinions run directly contrary to those of their governments. In the US there's a substantial element of the population and of academia that strongly disagrees with the government's policies and positions on the matter of Cuba, as you yourself are evidence of. Our beliefs are not monolithic and uniform, they're diverse and decentralized.

Your point of view on where the "neutrality" of sources originates is god awful. There's people who have a stake in this debate from Germany, India, the Philippines, Ecuador, Spain, Itlay, France, Singapore, etc., etc., etc. all these countries have a stake on the USA-vs-Cuba conflicts?

I cant wait for your explanations on this one.

Except there are sources from both countries that have absolutely nothing to do with...And I will keep giving more credibility to Neutral sources ... -in these highly politicized issues-

I'm not a Communist and actually, I despise most forms of it.

But, El Che was a great man and so is Fidel. For years, Cuba was the only free country in Latin America (free of colonialism) and despite all that was said, they never were really Soviet-puppets. For me, I can never hate Fidel, he helped us (Chile) when no one else would, and without him, the dreams of a free and united Latin America would have died.

Che represented revolution and martyrdom against oppression, I admire him, his victory will occur today. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, they are all liberating themselves from Colonialism and more will follow.

My major criticism of El Che and Fidel and Cuba and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela is they are far too Euro-centric in outlook. They aren't trying to restore Latino culture and eliminate a lot of the forced-culture or language, rather they are simply content with economic liberation, which in the end, is only one aspect needed.

Regardless, El Che lives today,

Viva El Che!
Viva Cienfuegos!
Viva Allende!
Viva la Revolución Bolivariana!

http://www.thechestore.com/

Wow...lolz

Our beliefs are not monolithic and uniform, they're diverse and decentralized.somewhat diverse, but Our beliefs are very much shaped by the information we are fed by FOX/CNN/AP/etc.....as you yourself are evidence of...first# The US population at NSG is not representative of the general US population, NSG-americans are better informed and more open minded than the average American. Just by being/lurking here we already have the advantage of having a better idea of what are the other POVs in the ROW.

second# Personally I have the advantage of having resided in several overseas countries.. and I keep in touch with many of the interesting people i met.

The US (average Joe) population does not have those 2 advantages, I am in no way shape of form representative of the US pop.

Can we please get back on to the topic at hand?

Trilby63;13126189']Can we please get back on to the topic at hand?what are you smoking ???


Almost every single post is related to el Che.
I just cant recall -a 10 pages thread- that stayed so much on-topic.

in fact, the most un-related post to elChe is.. your last post :D

[QUOTE=Andaluciae;13124861]What about the firsthand testimony of witnesses? Credible, provable eye witnesses like Father Arzuaga or Vilasuso (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/witness/LaCabana.html) testify to his penchant for the extrajudicial killings of detained prisoners. The construction of Che's myth, and the truth of the matter, his incompetence and his brutality, is discussed in this fine article from the New Republic (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535).


No one source is something to accept as proof one way or another. Just like the anti-chavistas, the rich who were in favor of Batista and anyone who protected the oligarchy are going to say many things against Fidel and the revolution. I know many Cubans who hate Fidel say that "Che was a great man that was manipulated by Fidel." I've heard all the stories and they never add up.
It takes tons more research than that. In fact, even though I study Latin American politics and history, I still can't say I've done enough.
I'll bet not one of you has done any research in Spanish, can describe the actual political structure of Cuba or even your own country, has known/talked to anyone who wast there or new Che. I have been lucky to meet many people through my professors and in traveling who were there and a couple who actually knew Che. So far, with all my accumulated knowledge, I feel that Che was an amazing person that did things for his people and not for himself. One thing you lack in the States(and I know because I lived there 26 years) is that you don't have a tenth of the amount of information as other parts of the world. I never saw any discussions or lectures by important Latin American figures. Never saw a speech by Che, Fidel, Chavez, artists, intelectuals. I only saw political pundits with no real facts, no real information I could learn something from. In the U.S. opinion rules and you only hear a very tiny fraction of what's going on.
You can site all the sources you want. It doesn't make you right.

"People who celebrate murderers and terrorists, no matter how "noble" their intent, worry me.

It is just a short step from saying "Che was a martyr for a good cause" to "Hitler wasn't so bad, he built nice roads".

There is a way to accomplish "revolution".

Terrorism is not that way."

It worries me when people jump on the bandwagon of calling anyone they fear a "terrorist". What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Better publicity. Between a mass murderer and a revolutionary? Better spin in the history books. Between an act of terror, and an act of war...? Better funding.

I'm not saying that violence is the answer, or that terrorism is inherently good. But we have absolutely no right to condemn Che when we glorify Christopher Columbus, our revolutionary forefathers, and our military. Our country was founded on slaughter, exploitation, and acts of terrorism. We come down so hard on Che because his executions were in pursuit of communist ideals, and communists are about as bad as terrorists (in the backward minds of my countrymen.)

Che? An idealist, a moving speaker, a man with real style. Everyone needs their heroes, and some have less blood on their hands than others. I haven't heard many Cubans speak out against Che, and aren't they the ones whose opinions matter? I personally admire a man who at least got his own hands dirty for a cause he believed in. If we have to demonize someone as a mass murderer, we need look no farther than our own pathetically misguided president.

Viva El Che.

somewhat diverse, but Our beliefs are very much shaped by the information we are fed by FOX/CNN/AP/etc..first#
Entirely ungermaine, becuase the types of sources that would and should be used by debates are not those that would merely be shaped by the mainstream media, but academic sources who would have access to alternative information, new theories and other useful elements. Not CNN or the AP, legitimate sources which you so ferociously malign. I mean, your cause celebre is one gigantic ad hominem fallacy.


The US population at NSG is not representative of the general US population, NSG-americans are better informed and more open minded than the average American. Just by being/lurking here we already have the advantage of having a better idea of what are the other POVs in the ROW.

second# Personally I have the advantage of having resided in several overseas countries.. and I keep in touch with many of the interesting people i met.

The US (average Joe) population does not have those 2 advantages, I am in no way shape of form representative of the US pop.

Entirely non-germaine, because the relevant sources in this sort of discussion should, and would have nothing to do with the "Average Joe", but with primary accounts, and academic analysis. I have provided you with one article from the New Republic, and another article hosted on a college website that is a direct translation of a portion of primary source testimony. Neither of those are invalidated by this claim.

Entirely ungermaine, becuase the types of sources that would and should be used by debates are not those that would merely be shaped by the mainstream media, but academic sources who would have access to alternative information, new theories and other useful elements. Not CNN or the AP, legitimate sources which you so ferociously malign. I mean, your cause celebre is one gigantic ad hominem fallacy.
Entirely non-germaine, because the relevant sources in this sort of discussion should, and would have nothing to do with the "Average Joe", but with primary accounts, and academic analysis. I have provided you with one article from the New Republic, and another article hosted on a college website that is a direct translation of a portion of primary source testimony. Neither of those are invalidated by this claim.All your should-be would-be peoples, .. all your academics.. alternative sourced, useful new theory seekers, All your academic Analysts, new Republics, college translators, they ALL failed to invalidate Bush irrational fallacies used to launch the War in Iraq.

Call me back when all these invisible "holly truth holders" show enough clout to -be able to- somewhat reason the rest of you -blind followers-.

"People who celebrate murderers and terrorists, no matter how "noble" their intent, worry me.

It is just a short step from saying "Che was a martyr for a good cause" to "Hitler wasn't so bad, he built nice roads".

There is a way to accomplish "revolution".

Terrorism is not that way."

It worries me when people jump on the bandwagon of calling anyone they fear a "terrorist". What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Better publicity. Between a mass murderer and a revolutionary? Better spin in the history books. Between an act of terror, and an act of war...? Better funding.

I'm not saying that violence is the answer, or that terrorism is inherently good. But we have absolutely no right to condemn Che when we glorify Christopher Columbus, our revolutionary forefathers, and our military. Our country was founded on slaughter, exploitation, and acts of terrorism. We come down so hard on Che because his executions were in pursuit of communist ideals, and communists are about as bad as terrorists (in the backward minds of my countrymen.)

Che? An idealist, a moving speaker, a man with real style. Everyone needs their heroes, and some have less blood on their hands than others. I haven't heard many Cubans speak out against Che, and aren't they the ones whose opinions matter? I personally admire a man who at least got his own hands dirty for a cause he believed in. If we have to demonize someone as a mass murderer, we need look no farther than our own pathetically misguided president.

Viva El Che.

The ever elusive middle ground has been found. You win the thread.

The ever elusive middle ground has been found. You win the thread.

I think it deserves more than one thread.

All your should-be would-be peoples, .. all your academics.. alternative sourced, useful new theory seekers, All your academic Analysts, new Republics, college translators, they ALL failed to invalidate Bush irrational fallacies used to launch the War in Iraq.

Call me back when all these invisible "holly truth holders" show enough clout to -be able to- somewhat reason the rest of you -blind followers-.

And this is relevant to the discussion of the true nature of Che Guevara, how? This claim, if true (which it isn't) has no bearing on our existing understanding and analysis on this matter. Furthermore, I don't even feel it's necessary to address your claims, because they are so off base, and so useless to this topic.

And this is relevant to the discussion of the true nature of Che Guevara, how? its all in the thread, read it..

look if you are too lazy.. I will show you the key points of the first 3 pages
-----------------------
CheHater: el Che is like Hitler.
CubaHater: yeah, el Che and the Cuban revolutionaries are mass-murderers.
CheHater: yeah, he is like the spanish inquisition..
CubaSucks: No.. he is worse than the Inquisition.
CubaHater: Yeah, I'd have killed the putrid piece of slim myself, slowly and with a smile..
Die_elChe:There should be a holiday to honor the people responsible for ventilating that gutter-rat piece of barely-human-shit.
KindaSensibleAmerican:Good riddance, murderous rubbish. Cliche Guevara was a torturer, a murderer, and a thug.
Bums-are-US: I should make it a point to find out where he's buried and take a well-deserved piss right then and there.
Ocean##: Dude, Your POVs are pretty much Made in USA (media).
[US]Trilbe63:You know what would be interesting? If you attempted to refute that point rather than dismissing it with a simple attack against the source. Seriously, some of us might be ignorant on the subject and would value your opinion on the matter.
I mean, the only thing I know about the guy is that he had sex with a dolphin..

etc etc etc..
----------------
there.. and thats only the first 3 pages..

Yay! Enough vitriol to melt the faces of a lot of children, in this thread.insults are the weapon of weak minded.
They are out of intelligent arguments.. so they pull the crap.

About biased sources on USA vs Cuba:
there is no general EU "official" bias about the issue. EU governments have a dual stance about that: "we want to trade with Cuba so down with the US embargo" and "we don't want to piss off the US too much so let's push for more political rights in Cuba".

However, EU political parties have quite different stances about that, with (usually) the centre and the right aligned strongly with the US and the left aligned strongly with Cuba. So, politically-influenced sources from the EU countries may carry a pro-US or a pro-Cuba bias.

I'm not a Communist and actually, I despise most forms of it.

But, El Che was a great man and so is Fidel. For years, Cuba was the only free country in Latin America (free of colonialism) and despite all that was said, they never were really Soviet-puppets. For me, I can never hate Fidel, he helped us (Chile) when no one else would, and without him, the dreams of a free and united Latin America would have died.


Well never were soviet puppets apart from the billions of roubles and the odd nuclear missile put into Cuba by the governemnt of the USSR.:fluffle:


Che represented revolution and martyrdom against oppression, I admire him, his victory will occur today. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, they are all liberating themselves from Colonialism and more will follow.


Actually most of South America has been self-governing since the collapse of the Spanish empire in the 1820's -1830's something to do with Simon Bolivar I'm led to believe:cool:

Actually if you really want to look at the difference between right wing revolutions and left wing revolutions take 2 countries, lets say Chile in 1973 and Ethiopia in 1974

Chile a right wing general siezes power from the socialists, result: 3000+people killed, many 1000's imprisoned and tortured :(

Ethiopia a left wing military junta seizes power from the previous right leaning government, result: hundreds of thousands dead in the resulting 'red terror' and famines that followed.:eek:

Call me old fashioned , but my chances of surviving a right wing revolution seem to be a lot greater than letting someone like che start a revolution. ;)

I'm not a Communist and actually, I despise most forms of it.

But, El Che was a great man and so is Fidel. For years, Cuba was the only free country in Latin America (free of colonialism) and despite all that was said, they never were really Soviet-puppets. For me, I can never hate Fidel, he helped us (Chile) when no one else would, and without him, the dreams of a free and united Latin America would have died.


You obviously have a very fast and loose definition of colonialism.

Well never were soviet puppets apart from the billions of roubles and the odd nuclear missile put into Cuba by the governemnt of the USSR.:fluffle:

Cuba's never been a soviet puppet anymore than Italy was (and is) a USA puppet. Billions of dollars in the ERP for Italy, nuclear missiles at Sigonella AB.

Ever heard of "cold war" and "bipolar world"?

Actually most of South America has been self-governing since the collapse of the Spanish empire in the 1820's -1830's something to do with Simon Bolivar I'm led to believe:cool:

Wait. Poor country with US investors leading the dance is self-governing, while poor country with CCCP donations is a puppet?
I... see... lack... of... symmetry...


Actually if you really want to look at the difference between right wing revolutions and left wing revolutions take 2 countries, lets say Chile in 1973 and Ethiopia in 1974
In another example, we might take the same country. Portugal. Take Salazar's regime and the Revoluçao dos Cravos. Or Italy, compare fascism and the liberation war (also called civil war by the fascists).
Eh. Examples, a double-edged weapon, I daresay.

But, El Che was a great man and so is Fidel. For years, Cuba was the only free country in Latin America (free of colonialism)

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most Latin American nations get their independence from their colonial masters around the beginning of the 19th Century? No offense, but the whole "colonialism is responsible for Latin America's problems" is getting kind of old. Latin America's problems are overwhelmingly caused by tyrannical leaders running dysfunctional political systems and adopting idiotic economic ideas. It's not the fault of long-dead colonialism that, for example, Mexico's politicans are corrupt or that Venezuela's democracy is being replaced by a demogogue dictator.

All Fidel and Che did was take an imperfect country (which was gradually heading towards reform) and turn it into one of the Western Hemisphere's worst economic and human rights basketcases.

For me, I can never hate Fidel, he helped us (Chile) when no one else would, and without him, the dreams of a free and united Latin America would have died.

Nonsense. The dream of a united Latin America died with Simon Bolivar. And free? Please. Cuba is the worst human rights offender in the Americas.

Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, they are all liberating themselves from Colonialism and more will follow.

Again with the juvenile "colonialism" cliche.

"
I'm not saying that violence is the answer, or that terrorism is inherently good. But we have absolutely no right to condemn Che when we glorify Christopher Columbus, our revolutionary forefathers, and our military.

As far as I know, Christopher Columbus, the Founding Fathers and the US military have not engaged in the sanctioned execution of political prisoners and dissidents. But don't let that stop you from making the asinine comparison.

Our country was founded on slaughter, exploitation, and acts of terrorism.

Yawn. Let me guess, you are, or just got out of, college.

We come down so hard on Che because his executions were in pursuit of communist ideals, and communists are about as bad as terrorists (in the backward minds of my countrymen.)

No, we come down on Che because he enjoyed murdering people with only the pretense of a trial.

Che? An idealist, a moving speaker, a man with real style. Everyone needs their heroes, and some have less blood on their hands than others.

There are still people who consider Hitler a hero. Now, Che isn't in that league, but let me note that Hitler never actually murdered anyone personally.

I haven't heard many Cubans speak out against Che, and aren't they the ones whose opinions matter?

Let me clue you in a little bit- what do you think happens to Cubans who opnely speak out against Che, Fidel or another "hero" of the revolution.

I personally admire a man who at least got his own hands dirty for a cause he believed in.

Oh, like Joseph Mengele or Lavrentiy Beria? They weren't afraid to dirty their hands for their causes. You admire them, too?

its all in the thread, read it..

look if you are too lazy.. I will show you the key points of the first 3 pages
-----------------------
CheHater: el Che is like Hitler.
CubaHater: yeah, el Che and the Cuban revolutionaries are mass-murderers.
CheHater: yeah, he is like the spanish inquisition..
CubaSucks: No.. he is worse than the Inquisition.
CubaHater: Yeah, I'd have killed the putrid piece of slim myself, slowly and with a smile..
Die_elChe:There should be a holiday to honor the people responsible for ventilating that gutter-rat piece of barely-human-shit.
KindaSensibleAmerican:Good riddance, murderous rubbish. Cliche Guevara was a torturer, a murderer, and a thug.
Bums-are-US: I should make it a point to find out where he's buried and take a well-deserved piss right then and there.
Ocean##: Dude, Your POVs are pretty much Made in USA (media).
[US]Trilbe63:You know what would be interesting? If you attempted to refute that point rather than dismissing it with a simple attack against the source. Seriously, some of us might be ignorant on the subject and would value your opinion on the matter.
I mean, the only thing I know about the guy is that he had sex with a dolphin..

etc etc etc..
----------------
there.. and thats only the first 3 pages..

How exactly does this prove that Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq is relevant to a discussion on the nature of this Che chappy? I mean, that was the question you know.. Seriously, it's all in the thread.. read it..

Actually, don't answer that. I've another question for you. Are any of your personal politics based on anything more than being contrary to those help by those in power in the US?

For the record, I'm English and belong very much to the left side of politics and I still think Che was a cock. I also think you're an embarrassment. Seriously, they'd tear you apart at libcom.org.
Even if all they do is spend flame each other and spend most of there time arguing about the tiniest aspect of left-wing political theory rather than doing anything constuctive. Idiots

Maybe... Che never died.

Adios

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most Latin American nations get their independence from their colonial masters around the beginning of the 19th Century? No offense, but the whole "colonialism is responsible for Latin America's problems" is getting kind of old. Latin America's problems are overwhelmingly caused by tyrannical leaders running dysfunctional political systems and adopting idiotic economic ideas. It's not the fault of long-dead colonialism that, for example, Mexico's politicans are corrupt or that Venezuela's democracy is being replaced by a demogogue dictator.

All Fidel and Che did was take an imperfect country (which was gradually heading towards reform) and turn it into one of the Western Hemisphere's worst economic and human rights basketcases.


Ah, no. While I personally have little time for stupid and outmoded socialist/communist government ideologies, that really is quite inaccurate.

The government Che and the Castros overthrew was not in any way heading for reform. The level of corruption, gangsterism and criminality they had reached would not be seen again until, probably, the late, unlamented Noriega regime in Panama. Whatever else happened, the Revolution in Cuba was needed to wipe away that excresence of the body politic called the Batista regime. Hell, the Mafia practically owned that government.

And the economic damage is wholly and solely our fault. The US blockade is the single proximate cause of Cuba's poverty. The island has significant natural resources and other sources of wealth, which the Catros have been reasonably careful to maintain.

However, aside from French Guyana and a few other small holdings, you're quite correct about South America being independent for (on average) about 150 years. After that long, you can no longer blame anyone else for your situation; you stand or fall on your own competence.

Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most Latin American nations get their independence from their colonial masters around the beginning of the 19th Century? No offense, but the whole "colonialism is responsible for Latin America's problems" is getting kind of old. Latin America's problems are overwhelmingly caused by tyrannical leaders running dysfunctional political systems and adopting idiotic economic ideas. It's not the fault of long-dead colonialism that, for example, Mexico's politicans are corrupt or that Venezuela's democracy is being replaced by a demogogue dictator.

Latin American independence has been nominal. Since the early 20th century the United States has controlled its southern neighbors through support of corrupt regimes, overthrows of democratic leaders, economic policies, and military action. You can dismiss these claims and history all you want but they're the at the heart of a problem that Latin Americans are now trying to solve.

Trilby63;13128514']How exactly does this prove that Bush's reasons for going to war with Iraq is relevant to a discussion on the nature of this Che chappy? I mean, that was the question you know.. :rolleyes:
its all there.. its all in the thread (HINT: you are supposed to read the thread) follow the little green arrows, they are there just for you.

one last Babysit for you (hopefully): posts #161 and #167
...

Trilby63;13128514']Actually, don't answer that. I've another question for you. Are any of your personal politics based on anything more than being contrary to those help by those in power in the US? I dont know, lets check it out,
"Those" in US power, are they about to ban the Death penalty?
"Those" in US power, are they about to ban the right to carry firearm?
"Those" in US power, are they about to set exceptions on free speech?
"Those" in US power, are they about to ban presidential elections?
etc.
...

Trilby63;13128514']For the record, I'm English and so is Tony Blair.
.
Trilby63;13128514'] I belong very much to the left side of politics and so is Tony Blair.
.
Trilby63;13128514']and I still think Che was a cock. I also think you're an embarrassment. Thats OK.. I happen to think you are a cock...

and so is Tony Blair. ;)
.
Trilby63;13128514']Seriously, they'd tear you apart at libcom.org Well, go to libcom.org and tell them ##(me) thinks they are all cokcs, tell them I challenge them to prove me wrong.. give them my address (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)

tell them I cant wait to kick their collective asses.. bring it on.. thunderdome rules, last man standing wins.

And the economic damage is wholly and solely our fault. The US blockade is the single proximate cause of Cuba's poverty. The island has significant natural resources and other sources of wealth, which the Catros have been reasonably careful to maintain.



That's not entirely true, given the nature of the fact that throughout the thirty years of having a Russian patron to dump countless billions of Rubles into Cuba, the country never turned a profit for them. Economic growth was stagnant, even with this direct aid, and the benefit of their sales of goods in non-US western countries.

But, El Che was a great man and so is Fidel. For years, Cuba was the only free country in Latin America (free of colonialism) and despite all that was said, they never were really Soviet-puppets.

Who cares whether the guy who denies you your freedom is of your nationality or not?

Castro and Guevara repeatedly showed minimal respect for democracy, human rights, and even the socialist ideals of equality by which they claimed to abide... the fact that they weren't from the United States and opposed capitalism changes nothing of that, and does not redeem them.

Who cares whether the guy who denies you your freedom is of your nationality or not?apparently the Iraqi insurgents do care.

and historically, men are more willing to fight when the one denying your freedoms is a puppet installed by an occupation force.. or a foreigner himself.

apparently the Iraqi insurgents do care.

Perhaps they do. I do not think they have any good reason to do so.

and historically, men are more willing to fight when the one denying your freedoms is a puppet installed by an occupation force.. or a foreigner himself.

Yes, and it seems to me that this distinction is pointless and counterproductive.

Domestic tyrants are still tyrants.

Domestic tyrants are still tyrants.sure..

I am on the record with the following statement: the bloody Military Coup/Junta/ like Pinochet deserve the Gas Chamber.

... regardless of nationality.

I did wonder if US citizens thought that the only freedom-fighter in 19th Century South America was Bolivar.

Now I know they do.

Seriously, Jose de San Martin was way better than Bolivar.

I'm Argentinian, and the amount of incoherences posted in this thread have ensured that I will not take place in this pointless argument.

I did wonder if US citizens thought that the only freedom-fighter in 19th Century South America was Bolivar.

Now I know they do.

Seriously, Jose de San Martin was way better than Bolivar.

I'm Argentinian, and the amount of incoherences posted in this thread have ensured that I will not take place in this pointless argument.I am willing to bet that if you walk into a random man in main-street-US, and tell him that..

He is going to say: "Who the fuck is Boliviar?"

:D

:rolleyes:
its all there.. its all in the thread (HINT: you are supposed to read the thread) follow the little green arrows, they are there just for you.

one last Babysit for you (hopefully): posts #161 and #167
...
Nope there isn't.. There's nothing but red herrings and and unfounded attacks against the source. Not one single point is refuted. Not one ounce of logic. The fact of the matter is this. You're an idiot. You claim that every single person in America to ever offer an opinion on the Iraq war in America has supported it and then on the back of this irrelevent and blatently false claim you make out that this has any bearing on whether Che was good person or not. It doesn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't. It makes me laugh to think you actually think that you make a good arguement.


and so is Tony Blair.

That's true.
and so is Tony Blair.

Yeah, that's false.
Thats OK.. I happen to think you are a cock...

insults are the weapon of weak minded.
They are out of intelligent arguments.. so they pull the crap.

and so is Tony Blair. ;)
On this we agree..

Well, go to libcom.org and tell them ##(me) thinks they are all cokcs, tell them I challenge them to prove me wrong.. give them my address (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)

tell them I cant wait to kick their collective asses.. bring it on.. thunderdome rules, last man standing wins.


I'm sure they have better things to do. I'm sure you don't.

Che, in the end, was stealing food and killing those he claimed to be fighting for. South American democracies, sadly, tend to be farces. Cavez, in Venezuela, was democratically elected and now he is changing everything in the constitution that suits him and the only way he'll give up power is through death. Want another example? Morales in Bolivia is managing to bring his country to the brink of civil war and through his governments ineptness the economy stagnates.

Trilby63;13129224']You claim that every single person in America to ever offer an opinion on the Iraq war in America has supported it.I never ever claimed that, adding lies to your previous silly arguments is not going to help your credibility.

I am calling out your Lie.
If you did not Lie, you can prove it with the very-convenient Quote function, prove I ever said "every single person in America to ever offer an opinion on the Iraq war in America has supported it."

I never ever claimed that, adding lies to your previous silly arguments is not going to help your credibility.

I am calling out your Lie.
If you did not Lie, you can prove it with the very-convenient Quote function, prove I ever said "every single person in America to ever offer an opinion on the Iraq war in America has supported it."

All your should-be would-be peoples, .. all your academics.. alternative sourced, useful new theory seekers, All your academic Analysts, new Republics, college translators, they ALL failed to invalidate Bush irrational fallacies used to launch the War in Iraq.

Well that's the thing isn't it. It doesn't matter if they supported it or not. They're wrong because they're American, right OD?

Who cares whether the guy who denies you your freedom is of your nationality or not?

Castro and Guevara repeatedly showed minimal respect for democracy, human rights, and even the socialist ideals of equality by which they claimed to abide...

Rather, the reason they "supported" those ideals was because said ideals made for efficient mechanisms of social control, especially in Cuba, because of the abuses of the previous government.

Trilby63;13129273']They're wrong because they're American, right OD?I am America (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QZG5mwsscug)n ... and so can (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EQDnXpSJQtA) you. ;)

Trilby63;13129273']Well that's the thing isn't it.No. No it is not.
Nowhere in there it says "every single person in America to ever offer an opinion on the Iraq war in America has supported it." Not even close.