At 6/5/08 09:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: i only hope that you feel the same about all people who kill because of ideological beleifs, such as the man who assassinated MLK, the man who assassinated ghandi?

keep in mind my statement is by no means a decleration of support for Che's, or other's, causes.

At 6/5/08 10:45 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 6/4/08 03:27 AM, WolvenBear wrote: 3. I DON'T like socialism because it has left over 100 million dead.

What about all of the death caused by Capitalism?

What about it? At least there has been progress made with capitalism. Communism itself is the stagnation of such progress and productivity.

At 6/5/08 10:45 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: I'm not talking about the work of Che personally you fool, I'm talking about the Cuban regime in general - after toppling Batista the poor of the land were taught how to read and given access to medical care.

I know.

Che has no defense. You tried to bring it up. I exposed it as BS. You changed tactics.
That more have died under Castro than Batista? Also irrelevant!

Over-opionated bullies like you rarely do.

When someone offers something that is devoid of fact it's hard to decide where to begin. I'm not over-opinionated or a bully, and I still started....but regardless...\

This is irrelevant, you've already admitted your position on socialism.

As I do again later.
However, you viewed my disdain for Che as m y opinion on all socialistic programs. Which is beyond stupid.

A key component of a fascist state is coporatism, which is hardly socialist. You can't call fascists socialists, that's just bollocks. I'm willing to put a pretty safe bet on the fact that you're confusing Nazism [which was hardly socialism either, and ten says you point out the word "socialism" is in the name] with fascism.

OMGZORS. Teh Nation Soialeeeests weren't soialeeests,
That ignores their blatant disdain for capitalism.

Hell, I'll use this moronic leftist site:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.h tm

"In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state."

Private ownership, but controlled by the state is....say it with me...SOCIALISM. It's a different variety, but it's still socialism. State control of business is NOT capitalism. If you don't get that, you're not bright enough to debate this.

What about all of the death caused by Capitalism? In the third world there are millions dying every year due to completely preventable diseases, but whenever someone tries to topple their corrupt governments and provide basic human rights like health care, they're labelled a pinko and destroyed by the United States.

Provide a SINGLE instance. Capitalist right wingers argued against banning DDT. Socialist leftists got it banned. The EEEEVIL right winger Bush toppled Saddam and was met with hysteria.
The facts don't support your case.

I mean look at the terrorist Contras your government backed to fight against the Sandinistas, psychos who indiscriminantly decimated civillians and burned down health care clinics - all in the name of Capitalism!

The hostage taking FCLN were hardly the good guys. Taking exception with them was no less contentious than taking sides against HAMAS.

I'm not condoning any mass murder which has been carried out by "socialist" regimes in the 20th Century, but you're acting like there's no blood on the hands of capitalism and I won't have that.

The deaths resulting from socialism are directly relatable to socialism. The deaths related to capitalism aren't relatable to capitalism. We can get into detail if needed. But here it isn't needed.

Keep them coming, I'm ready to knock down anything you put forward.

You haven't yet.

They were part of the state apparatus.

THEY WERE PRISONERS!
They were helpless and in cages. Their executions were hardly relevant.

I'd say I'm a libertarian socialist actually, but what worth is there in a label?

You can't be a libertarian socialist. The terms contradict. It;s like being a vegetarian meat eater.

In terms of ignorance I'd say you were in a league of your own.

Good comeback. Mr. "socialist libertarian".

No, I fucking will lecture you if it merits it. If you equate fascism only with the killing of innocents then you're labelling your own army as a fascist organisation.

You labelled me as a fascist because I disagreed with you. You have no room to label anyone as anything.

You'd obviously say that from an ethnocentric neo-con perspective; but i'll tell you for free that in the rest of the world "Guerrillero Heroico" is the most famous image of the 20th Century.

Fuck, first you don't know what fascist means. Now you don't know what neo-con means?
Jesus, you're an imbecile.
Yea, I';m not a neo-con.
Idiot.

The Che "fad" as you call it has been going long before 2004, but again - you're speaking from a North American perspective. It's kind of typical that you lot won't assimilate something into popular culture unless it's been in a hit movie. I've never even seen "The Motorcycle Diaries", for the record.

When the first Che memorial was constructed after his death it was immediately torn down by the locals. Shrug, he's not liked by the people who experienced him.

"The commodification of the image has been ongoing since his death, and since the late 1990's has seen a resurgence. "

Che was immediately celebrated after his death by communist regimes. It was also immediately revolted against by the "common folk". The idea that he was a savior of the people didn's come about til the late 90s.

If I take your word, Che was a figure in some random country without mass media,
None of that changes my points.

I know that's a very subjective experience but it does point out that Che has, at least in my country, always been a figurehead of the left and a struggles against oppression.

By anecdote and person word.

At 6/5/08 10:21 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/5/08 09:20 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: i only hope that you feel the same about all people who kill because of ideological beleifs, such as the man who assassinated MLK, the man who assassinated ghandi?

keep in mind my statement is by no means a decleration of support for Che's, or other's, causes.

I know, i am just saying the emotion should, in theory, be the same.

At 6/7/08 10:31 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I know, i am just saying the emotion should, in theory, be the same.

maybe not the emotion, but the rationalisation of the event. also i don't know the motivations of MLK's shooter, but i do know that of Gandhi, and his was more deplorable than that of others discussed earlier as it was aimed not at creating the greatest good for most but simply removing a figurehead of peace between two groups and encouraging continued enmity.
even Hitler envisioned a segregated world where each people had their own land (of course whether or not they would be able to use it to support themselves or if it would go to further the cause of the Aryan people, i'm not sure).

At 6/13/08 05:51 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: He doesn't need defense.

He murdered unarmed civilians. That kinda needs a defense yes.

I've stuck to my guns and you've yet to debunk a single thing I've said. Give up.

You said Che taught children to read. I countered that. You admitted it never happened.
That's one.

You're an over-opinionated bully with a hard-on for hawk foreign policy, that's why you hate Guevara.

I hate Guevara because he gunned down unarmed people. I hate guevara because he was an unrepentant murderer.

I view it as a combination of your intrinsic hatred for traditional working class values and your love of U.S Imperialism.

Because you're a fucking asshat.
And you're too stupid to know the meaning of terms like "imperialism".

Che guevara was born elsewhere yet traveled to Cuba and across the Americas to institute his form of government. That imperialistic.

If private capitalists own industry and profit from it, you're living in a capitalist country. The fact that they were controlled by the Nazi party and state is irrelevant, as every person in the country was.

Ah OK, "trouble me not with facts syndrome".

We're done here....

I don't know why (I think there's going to be a Guevara seminar or sth), but there are lots of Guevara quotes in the 2nd floor of the school of economics.
I'll take a better look and tell ya.

And you're too stupid to know the meaning of terms like "imperialism".

SIDE BAR:
I'm probably the only one with the historical backing to put terms like Empire and Imperialism in their proper contexts, and how the variety in which the words can be used. Hence the name guys.....

FYI: Rome was Imperial well before Augustus ever seized power. Some historians have termed their brand of imperialism as "defensive imperialism".

http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs25/f/2008/1 62/c/8/Rebel_by_Iron_Confederate.jpg

My opinion on Che Guevvara

At 6/13/08 08:03 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

I've stuck to my guns and you've yet to debunk a single thing I've said. Give up.

Proof by assertion.

You said Che taught children to read. I countered that. You admitted it never happened.

No, I said through the revolution Cuba's literacy rate sky-rocketed. You then decided you'd build a straw-man argument that I was putting Che forward as some benevolent Uncle who went around teaching poor peasant children to read.

No, you said (my quote included):

:: What nonsense. Batista was hardly a great guy...but let's stop pretending that what replaced him wasn't worse. Even if we grant that Che's cause started nobly, it decended into evil REALLY quick.

:Yeah, teaching the poor how to read and providing them with health care is really the stuff of Hell.

So in refuting a claim that Che's work was bad, you claimed he taught school children to read. I countered that by mocking the claim's basis. You admitted that never happened, and that it was Cuba that did it. You did something. I called you on it. When called, you changed your claim and used your new claim to say I was dishonest. Yea, I'm the one with the problem here.

You're trying to cherry pick. Che did indeed help lead the Cuban revolution, and for the few good things they did he deserves some credit. But that also means he gets lumped in with the crap. The "reforms" he helped impliment are what are causing so much hell today in Cuba.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/
biography/econ-ministry.htm

Even this positive biography shows gradual deterioration of the quality of life. Even assuming the US was evil in embargoing Cuba...they did so because of the new government. Wages were constantly lowered, and quality became non-existant. Che's focus on working for "common good" instead of economic prosperity helped doom Cuba.

Stop questioning whether or not I use the meaning of terms I'm using, the fact that I'm using them in their correct context should tell you that.

You're NOT using them in their correct context. You claim I love American imperialism. OK, that's dumb. Where have I voiced support for us taking over countries to make an empire? I haven't you say? Well, shit.
So since I haven't done that, you're use of the term is incorrect. Since you're incorrect, and your inaccuracy stems from a ridiculous assumption, it's a safe bet to say you don't know what you're talking about.

It's never substance with you, it's all petty attack. You haven't proven a damn thing.

It's petty attack MIXED with substance. You support someone who gleefully killed unarmed prisoners, who he admitted he didn't care if they were innocent.

You just keep writing off my criticisms as irrelevant. "Sure he killed unarmed prisoners. But they were bad, so who cares?"

Che was aiding in overthrowing a Dictator. If he had travelled to Cuba with the intention of building an Argentinian Empire, it would have been imperialistic.

Hardly. He went to institute his own form of government. He created an (admittedly small) Cuban empire. He then travelled across Latin America trying to expand his influence.
It is far more imperialistic than this "American imperialism" you are dreaming up.

Ah okay, I pointed out to you that the economy of Nazi Germany was State Capitalist and not Socialist, you had no counter for that. "I can't answer your points syndrome".

Socialism, defined by Webster:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

So we have a government that tells business, "You will make the amount we tell you to. You will buy at the price we demand and you will sell at the price we demand. And at any time we feel you are making too much, we will take it away from you. We will control and oversee every aspect of your business, and you will change anything we don't like for any reason."

So you didn't "point out" that the economy under Nazism was "state capitalism" (which is a stupid term btw), you simply asserted it in the face of facts that proved you were wrong. By this definition, Che was a capitalist, because he controlled wages, and when the government SOLD something they made MONEY.

Making a baseless assertion when the facts say otherwise is definition "trouble me not with facts" syndrome.

It is really sad how people here are downplaying him. The "he shot and killed a 14-year-old girl" is a very old baseless rumour. Did he kill people? Yes. If you didn't know, people die in war. Groups of unarmed civilians who are brainwashed into Batista's sick system fighting back is not innocent. They were a threat just as much as the soldiers. Morpheus said it better: "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."

Only most of the civilians wanted to be freed, so they did not fight back and cheered him on.

Che was a murderer he trained cuban death squads and rebels in africa who are founders of modern day or descendant groups in africa. he would kill his own men if he thought they were traitors with no concrete proof.

he was a war criminal its a good thing the CIA brought his dumb ass down.

At 5/8/12 01:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

Sometimes I think that you get paid for saying stuff on Newgrounds.

I have heard about him and hate him. It's sad that Penn and Teller never did an episode on him. They mentioned in this one episode that Mother Teresa and Gandhi were better than him and they made fun of THEM in an episode, so imagine how horrible Che must have been. Christopher Hitchens is a total idiot for supporting him. He went insane because the Dalai Lama received money from a murderer. You know, Hitchens, it's kind of worse to BE an actual mass murderer than being friends with one. Idiot.

At 5/8/12 03:09 AM, ClickToPlay wrote:

At 5/8/12 01:18 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

Sometimes I think that you get paid for saying stuff on Newgrounds.

unfortunately I don't it would be nice though.

I love hope people say that he was fighting imperialism and the US and gave more to the world than imperialism.

Che:
all he did was give hope to those who were hopeless.
"help the poor" (barely by the way)

imperialism:
higher standard of living
aid to places like africa
immunizations for small pox and other contagious diseases
economic growth.

At 6/1/08 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Name a picture more famous than Guerrillero Heroico. Go on.

This

At 5/10/12 01:51 AM, TucoM wrote:

At 6/1/08 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Name a picture more famous than Guerrillero Heroico. Go on.

This

now that is a real hero.

At 5/10/12 01:56 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 5/10/12 01:51 AM, TucoM wrote:

At 6/1/08 06:38 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Name a picture more famous than Guerrillero Heroico. Go on.

This

now that is a real hero.

I'd even give the commie cosmonauts kudos for having more balls than Che.

How long would of Che, Fidel, and their rag tag bunch of revolutionaries lasted at Stalingrad? I'd say a week, tops.

At 5/10/12 02:03 AM, TucoM wrote: I'd even give the commie cosmonauts kudos for having more balls than Che.

yeah and there were a few secret Red cosmonaut missions that failed

How long would of Che, Fidel, and their rag tag bunch of revolutionaries lasted at Stalingrad? I'd say a week, tops.

agreed and $20 says they would cry like bitches like che did when he was executed.

CIA Special Activities Division for the win.

The cold weather would make them cry.

I wonder how long Che would of lasted during Mao's long march.......or fighting alongside the Viet Cong, enduring Arc Light, Green Berets and SEALS, and roving, predatory Huey Cobras?

At 5/10/12 01:28 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: imperialism:
higher standard of living

Not in certain places like Afghanistan and Iraq...still war zones, still pretty crap.

aid to places like africa

Which parts? Africa is a continent remember...big place...still a lot of shit holes, and money don't fix everything.

immunizations for small pox and other contagious diseases

That one I'll give you...now if only we could do something about the dummies who bring this crap back cause their baselessly worried the cure is worse then the disease.

economic growth.

Followed by economic shrink...and this is NOT an across the board thing. I really do get tired of you either outright lying or only telling the part of the story that supports your views of American Exceptionalism.

He was intelligent, he knew that stalinism and maoism and the like were NOT in the interests of the people and certainly not the best way of achieving his fruity utopia. If he actually cared he would have worked for social democratic or moderate socialist parties with no ties to Moscow or it's plan of world domination.

Furthermore he cannot claim that he was only doing what was necessary given the times and the situation he was in since he was not defending his country like a wehrmacht officer during ww2, he had a choice, he could have lived a peaceful life as a civilian or he could have worked for moderate groups that were not simply propoganda for a bunch of armed thugs and bound by ethics and logic.

As for his fame, that's mostly an invention of the bourgeois capitalist pigs he fought against, it's fashionable to be a rebel so hipsters wear the t-shirt manufactured by sweatshop labor to stick it to mommy and daddy.

At 5/10/12 03:04 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 5/10/12 01:28 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: imperialism:
higher standard of living

Not in certain places like Afghanistan and Iraq...still war zones, still pretty crap.

but still better than what it was 40 years ago when Che was around and not under communist rule. if it werent for the rest they would still be on herbal remedies and prayer healing. at least now they have some access to better care electricity etc.

Which parts? Africa is a continent remember...big place...still a lot of shit holes, and money don't fix everything.

Darfur sudan ethiopia ETC all that UN shit.

At 5/10/12 03:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but still better than what it was 40 years ago when Che was around and not under communist rule. if it werent for the rest they would still be on herbal remedies and prayer healing. at least now they have some access to better care electricity etc.

Places like Afghanistan, Somalia and the DRC they don't have any form of negotiation, if there's any kind of dispute someone has to go, they don't phone their lawyer they just reach for their ak47. So how can you expect freedom to exist in a situation where people do not even talk things through? You need to first allow a Hobbesian leviathan to put some order and allow things to settle.

We should have conducted an intelligence evaluation of the various warlords and power groups in the Taliban and decided to secretly back some of them in exchange for Osama's head on a platter, if any of them were stuck up fanatics who are willing to sacrifice power for pig headed superstition then they will lose power and be silently dispatched by some upstart or defeated by a rival in a blitz style raid fueled by American assistance. Believe me, Osama would have been invited to some Mullah's tent who he believed to be a friend only for all his followers to be butchered and himself beaten and dragged off to be used as a bargaining chip with the US. Then the northern alliance would form it's own little state tied to Kazakhstan and other succesful central asian states while Pashtun Afghanistan would become an Islamic dictatorship which we could gradually spread capitalism into through it's economic ties with Pakistan.

At 5/10/12 09:15 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Places like Afghanistan, Somalia and the DRC they don't have any form of negotiation, if there's any kind of dispute someone has to go, they don't phone their lawyer they just reach for their ak47. So how can you expect freedom to exist in a situation where people do not even talk things through? You need to first allow a Hobbesian leviathan to put some order and allow things to settle.

what the fuck are you talking about I am talking about Standards of Living through foreign influence, not human rights in the middle east.

We should have conducted an intelligence evaluation of the various warlords and power groups in the Taliban and decided to secretly back some of them in exchange for Osama's head on a platter, if any of them were stuck up fanatics who are willing to sacrifice power for pig headed superstition then they will lose power and be silently dispatched by some upstart or defeated by a rival in a blitz style raid fueled by American assistance. Believe me, Osama would have been invited to some Mullah's tent who he believed to be a friend only for all his followers to be butchered and himself beaten and dragged off to be used as a bargaining chip with the US. Then the northern alliance would form it's own little state tied to Kazakhstan and other succesful central asian states while Pashtun Afghanistan would become an Islamic dictatorship which we could graduallyspread capitalism into through it's economic ties with Pakistan.

and this had to do with anything why? once again off topic and nothing about OBL jesus christ are you paying attention to the topic or did you post in the wrong thread?

At 5/10/12 02:16 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I am talking about Standards of Living through foreign influence, not human rights in the middle east.

Endemic warfare is strongly related to low standards of living.

and this had to do with anything why?

All these countries are wartorn and undeveloped, what happens in Afghanistan gives insights into what happens in Sudan, Somalia and the Congo.

Not sure how you can't see how they are related.

At 5/10/12 03:20 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Not sure how you can't see how they are related.

by talking about OBL? pff. our troops are still helping build infrastructure for them.

he is a coward and a communist and he is overrated i fucking hate that guy

At 5/12/12 09:44 AM, Saren wrote: he is a coward and a communist and he is overrated i fucking hate that guy

if he didn't, have his death squads to back him up he would retreat like a bitch
ironically when he preached about dying for the "revolution". it only took the CIA to capture him and cap his ass.