Your argument is nutty. If I’m to use your argument, I could say GW and by extension any leader who agrees with him and helps him, such as Tony Bleuurgh for example, is more of a murderous thug than, say Tim McVeigh or the 911 bombers or whatever. Is that really what you think? If so, I have nothing more to say to you that can be printed here.
And why the ref. to GW, anyway? We’re discussing the murderous rampage of the terrorist Che Guevara, not George Bush.
It’s a worthwhile comparison. Your comparison to Tim McVeigh and the 911 bombers is completely wrong. Che didn’t go on murderous rampages; he assisted oppressed peoples to fight against bad governments. The US purportedly invaded Iraq for the same reason. But Che didn’t use tactics that would obviously result in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, as the US does. Instead, he directed his attacks more specifically against the soldiers who opposed him and he killed far fewer innocent civilians, both in numbers and in percentage of total deaths caused. So I don’t think it’s nutty at all to claim that Bush, who authorizes the invasion of foreign lands without provocation, cavalierly killing, maiming and torturing a far greater number of innocent people is the greater thug.
As I said, if you’re not familiar with Che’s life, fine. The comparison someone made earlier between Che and Osama Bin Laden was absurd. Che was not a terrorist. He wasn’t into bombs or using civilians as targets. His thing was overthrowing wrongful governments – exactly what Bush is into – except that Che had greater respect for innocent civilians.
Then clearly we have nothing further to discuss.
Because the needle is stuck, the needle is stuck, the needle is stuck, the needle is stuck.
It is quite obvious that for several posters here every subject, every topic posted, must devolve in some strange way into an anti-George Bush or anti-USA.
Quite friggin’ weird. Perhaps simple envy, perhaps some deeper deficiency in their life or psyche.
For these persons, perhaps professional help would be appropriate.
Mother Teresa’s comparison makes perfect sense. A lot of the people criticizing Che in this forum are the same people who support bush. MT is pointing out the hypocricy of that and he is doing it in a way that suggests the possibility that the overthrow of sadam may have been possible with fewer civilian casualties. That may or may not be correct of course but it is worth discussing.
What a cop out. I raise a sincere question and you refuse to answer. Apparently either (a) you concede I am correct or (b) like the other attackers of Che you really don’t know anything about him (which seems evident by your comparing him to Tim McVeigh, etc., when he was far from that). I suspect the latter is the case and as I’ve said, if you really don’t know about the subject that’s nothing to be ashamed of. I admitted that I didn’t a few months ago till I read a book on the subject. But it’s not nice to toss insults about concerning people you don’t know anything about – even dead people such as Che.
That’s right. He was a kind-hearted, generous to a fault, all-around good guy. What a fool I am to think otherwise. There. You’ve convinced me. And actually, I have been reading about him all afternoon, thanks. It’s not a pretty picture of a murderous terrorist. Maybe you’re reading different things.
And it’s not a cop-out at all. You have your deeply flawed position and so have I, and I have not the slightest desire to get into yet another of Forumosa’s interminable and totally circular arguments-without-end.
So, let’s have a discussion about the recent resurgence of Ronald Reagan worship among the weak minded. How many people think that Ronald Reagan was an insignificant poseur and mass murderer? How many think that like John Walker Lindh he had issues that could have been better resolved on a shrink’s couch? But from what I hear, Ronnie was handsome and he did have a lot of strong “feelings” about things. And a weak memory when on the witness stand. How does that make you feel? Does that help validate you?
“Che was the most complete human being of our age.”
-Jean-Paul Sartre
The recent movie Motorcycle Diaries is excellent and covers Che’s early life.
There is also his classic book Guerilla Warfare. Both the movie and the
book (in .pdf format) can be downloaded.
geocities.com/Hollywood/8702/che.html is also a good introduction.
Analyzing the mode of operation of the guerrilla band, seeing its form of struggle and
understanding its base in the masses, we can answer the question: why does the guerrilla fighter
fight? We must come to the inevitable conclusion that the guerrilla fighter is a social reformer, that
he takes up arms responding to the angry protest of the people against their oppressors, and that
he fights in order to change the social system that keeps all his unarmed brothers in ignominy
and misery. He launches himself against the conditions of the reigning institutions at a particular
moment and dedicates himself with all the vigor that circumstances permit to breaking the mold
of these institutions.
Oh dear, look what happens when you shine the light on the cockroaches.
MT is slightly confused. 30,000 deaths is the max number of civilian casualties in Iraq. Human Rights Watch and other groups have put this at 15,000 to 18,000. So who is killing them? The US? US troops? No. Most of these deaths have been caused by the guerillas and insurgents. To equate deaths caused accidentally by US troops is a fatuous argument at best and a deeply immoral one at worst.
So Che was fighting oppression hmmm? so what came afterwards? A better more enlightened form of government or something much worse? 80,000 people have been killed in Cuba alone. The Sandinistas are estimated to have killed 50,000. Given that communism has failed everywhere, why not fight to stop it? When has a communist takeover resulted in more rights, more freedom? Why then not fight it?
What was Che’s plan? Revolution? How did that help in Argentina? Brazil? Peru? What ever came out of this amoral posturing? The man was sick and should have spent time with a psychiatrist discussing his issues. I find it very interesting that John Walker Lindh seemed to be much of the same ilk as Che. I believe that deep down the reasons were the same. Deserted by his father, doted on by his mother… The same pattern seems to be emerging. I think that, however, Che became an ultimate cool symbol precisely because he appeals to young, immature, not fully developed psychologies which often manifest themselves in violent, antisocial, narcissistic, nihilistic behavior. It is what we are seeing in Islamofascism today. The death cult. This too will pass. It passed in Germany, it passed in Latin America and some day the Middle East will be free of it too. That said, anyone who likes to die like Che should engage in excessive alcohol consumption and run their car off the bridge. Why take anyone else with you?
Ronald Reagan resulted in freedom throughout the communist block. He prevented Latin American nations from going communist like Cuba. He is a hero. Ask anyone in Eastern Europe if they would like the old system back and who they credit for the results.
That’s funny, four months ago The Lancet estimated 100,000 dead civilians.
[quote]100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16
One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion… The paper was “extensively peer-reviewed, revised, edited” and rushed into print… [/quote]
full story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
“Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.” – Greg Palast
“The presidency of Ronald Reagan himself was so bad, on so many levels, that as young adults a sizeable number of us could only sputter in impotent rage, a rage summed up nicely by the Crucif***s song “Hinckley Had A Vision.” It simply made no sense that an entire country could be run by sinister thugs, all because its spokesperson was a washed up actor with the professional training to deliver the most ridiculous, venal lies with a calming, “Great Communicator” demeanor.” – Geov Parrish at Working for Change
“Reagan was a busy man fomenting murder and terrorism around the world.” – Nathan Newman
“Ronald Reagan is dead, and the world is no worse off for it. At the best of times, he was an ineffectual dunce. At the worst, he was a dangerous madman who threatened humanity’s very survival.” – Colin Shea
"We all know Reagan’s legacy, from the Iran-Contra affair to the funding of the Nicaraguan military in which over 200,000 people died. " --Danny Glover
“The man whose administration spearheaded class warfare on behalf of the rich, dragged American politics to the right, and rebuilt US imperialism after the Vietnam debacle, is dead. Good riddance.” – Phil Gasper
“Reagan was a cold-blooded murderer, a union busting parasite, con artist, and a good liar. I’ll shed no tear for the death of a tyrant. Nor will I stand by idly while the truth is sacrificed in a frenzied worship of a demagogue. Reagan was evil personified, he can rot in hell.” – Glen Yeadon
Amen.
Danny Glover is a not too bright (and not too talented) actor. Got news for both of you:
The Nicaraguan military was funded by the Soviet Union.
The Lancet pulled that number out of its ass a couple of days prior to the US election in a desperate attempt to try and swing the vote to Kerry.
[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“Shenme Niao”]
"We all know Reagan’s legacy, from the Iran-Contra affair to the funding of the Nicaraguan military in which over 200,000 people died. " --Danny Glover
[/quote]
Danny Glover is a not too bright (and not too talented) actor.
[/quote]
You mean to say, now that we’re on the subject of not too bright (and not too talented) actors? Like Ronnie-boy?
Still, I -LIKE- Danny Glover. He’s a great communicator.
Stalin is right. The figure was “extrapolated” in such a way as to find a mean based on the few interviews that it conducted. No one else found such a figure credible and since the election is over it has dropped out of sight. The most reliable claims are 15,000 to 18,000 with 30,000 TOTAL dead but this would include insurgents and Iraqi soldiers fighting US troops during the invasion. Sorry incorrect.
[quote=“Shenme Niao”]
Still, I -LIKE- Danny Glover. He’s a great communicator.
[/quote]
He must be. He spews out bullshit, you eat it up then call it tutti-frutti.
Bon appetit!
Go back to the other site. We have been through this already. Total dead in Nicaragua during the Somoza Revolution and the Sandinista reign is 200,000. That means that during the rebellion against the Somozas some would be attributable to Sandinistas and AFTER they took over they were responsible for 50,000 dead to 80,000 dead. So much for a free and democratic society. The Sandinistas failed but they gave dumb actors a cause celebre. Viva la Sandinistas. Viva la Nicaragua. They would yell at the Oscars and the rest of us would go. Hmmm if these actors are FOR the Sandinistas. Much better to be against.
Well, as the US certainly isn’t counting, we may never know… But, perhaps contrary to your wishes, it hasn’t “dropped out of site.”
eg.
http://afr.com/articles/2005/03/03/1109700600546.html
I’m sure if you went to news.google.com you’d be able to find that a lot of people still site this total. I believe that 15,000-18,000 is from Iraq body count and those folks concede their number is likely low.
[quote]We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the “unseen” number of deaths might have been. This total can only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or transnational authority.
[/quote]
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
again your numbers are too low. perhaps 100,000 is too high. We will likely never know.
I just finished this book a couple weeks ago - it’s a reprint of Che’s post-Congo analysis of his failure to help the Congolese revolution. The book was meant as a kind of case study for other revolutionaries to learn from. It’s the first book I’ve read about Che or by Che so it was quite interesting.
It surprises me that people here can group Che and Dubya together. Che was the antithesis of American imperialism. He went to the Congo in order to fight the long reach of American imperialism. Dubya has gone to Afghanistan and Iraq to secure American (and Israeli) interests for the future at the expense of American democracy and civil rights as well as countless Iraqi, Afghani and American lives.
Death is death, no matter what your doctrine, but at least those peasants and revolutionaries died fighting for the only thing worth dying for: freedom from oppression.