The Cult of Che

[Tony]

http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/ ...full article

The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.


Why do people romanticize this idiot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, or do they share his despotic views?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Tony
Why do people romanticize this idiot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, or do they share his despotic views? Yes.

[nelsondogg]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/ ...full article



Why do people romanticize this idiot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, or do they share his despotic views?

Must be those cool t-shirts with his silhouette.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by nelsondogg
Must be those cool t-shirts with his silhouette.

I'm getting (http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/common/kicks/elchegetsthemickey1000x800.png) one.

[crimresearch]

Hah! I *wore* the real one to high school in Greensboro NC in the '60s...bright yellow so no one would miss it.

Che and Fidel were great men liberating their people from the greedy and oppressive overlords.I know this because my Dad used to tell me about them at night for a bedtime story.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
I'm getting (http://www.thedissidentfrogman.com/common/kicks/elchegetsthemickey1000x800.png) one.

I like the variation found here. (http://store.theworstpageintheuniverse.com/)

[DaChew]

This version makes some folks vapor-lock


http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/reagan350.gif

[Patrick]

Why do people romanticize this idiot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, or do they share his despotic views?

The posters are in dorm rooms, and the T-shirts are worn as an act of rebellion by idiot students having a delayed adolescence, and who for the most part have never earned a living, never fought dictators' troops in war, and know little or nothing about history.

[LostAngeles]

Let's not forget the bright pink pocketbooks I saw on display outside a store down by Sunset Junction.

The popular image of Che is that of a revolutionary for the people and became their martyr. It's mythology at work.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
The popular image of Che is that of a revolutionary for the people and became their martyr. It's mythology at work. No, it's ignorance and stupidity at work. You could make just as good an argument for mythologizing Charles Manson except that Manson didn't kill as many people.

[crimresearch]

Che was a bad man? Next you'll be telling me that the Easter Bunny stories weren't true either?
:eek:

[Madalch]

By the power of the Tome of Necromancy, I resurrect this thread!!

A friend of mine was telling me the other day that -he- was the designer of the original "Che" T-shirts in the 1960s- he advertised them in Rolling Stone and another magazine (the name of which was unfamiliar to me), and ship them all over. He was once stopped at the US border with a shipment of these shirts, and some FBI agents flew in from Seattle to interrogate him. They wanted to know if he was being funded by Moscow or by Peking, but he was funded only by T-shirt sales.

Anyone have some ancient Rolling Stone magazines with these ads in them?

[TragicMonkey]

The answer is: because he was attractive. Nobody would fetishize the image of an unattractive revolutionary. If he'd looked more like Luis Guzman and less like Gael Garcia Bernal, nobody on earth would have a tshirt of him. It would be less annoying if it were based even on the romanticized version of his life, but it's not even that deep!

[coalesce]

I've always maintained that if Che Guevera looked like Marty Feldman, he'd be a forgotten asterisk in history.

Michael

[NoScotsman]

Since Che hated America ... and because everything about America is evil ... everything Che ever said/did was right.


This is the level of discourse you get from pro-Che folks. It's the same "reasoning" that folks use when they support anti-Israeli organizations ... or when they try to mitigate the evils of radical Islam.

[KingMerv00]

The answer is: because he was attractive. Nobody would fetishize the image of an unattractive revolutionary.

People fetishize Kim Jong Il.

[Newtons Bit]

People fetishize Kim Jong Il.

Ew.

[NoScotsman]

People fetishize Kim Jong Il.

This is true, however, you must remember that seeing anything clearly in North Korea can get you killed. Among the thousands of North Koreans living with untreated cataracts, Kim Jong Il is the very picture of beauty.

[dudalb]

Why do people romanticize this idiot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, or do they share his despotic views?

The posters are in dorm rooms, and the T-shirts are worn as an act of rebellion by idiot students having a delayed adolescence, and who for the most part have never earned a living, never fought dictators' troops in war, and know little or nothing about history.

Exactly. They are the political Left's answer to the Tea Baggers.

BTW, I have the T Shirt with the picture of Che and the slogan"Communism Killed 100'000'000 people and all I got was this lousy T Shirt".

[dudalb]

Actually,back in the 60's and 70's, Che was running neck in nick with Mao as the Big Radical Icon, and Mao made Che look like bumbling amateur when it came to mass murder.

[Brainster]

My favorite was in 1972 or so when National Lampoon did a "Is Nothing Sacred?" issue, showing that their writers and artists would mine any topic for humor. The cover showed (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SUPvcXAh38I/AAAAAAAADB0/ZICyh_HBRnQ/s1600-h/7201cover_s.jpg) the iconic image of Che getting a pie in the face.

[defaultdotxbe]

Exactly. They are the political Left's answer to the Tea Baggers.

BTW, I have the T Shirt with the picture of Che and the slogan"Communism Killed 100'000'000 people and all I got was this lousy T Shirt".
heh, i have this variation (http://thoseshirts.com/checap.html) myself

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/ ...full article



Why do people romanticize this idiot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, or do they share his despotic views?

They want to be ironic hipsters. See: Pabst Blue Ribbon, Von Dutch trucker caps.

[MG1962]

Yes and Paul Berman is your go to man on the subject. I prefer my history a little more balanced

Che was a bastard, but hey the man he was trying to get rid of was a bigger bastard

[Gazpacho]

The answer is: because he was attractive. Nobody would fetishize the image of an unattractive revolutionary.
Frida Kahlo

[MG1962]

Since Che hated America ... and because everything about America is evil ... everything Che ever said/did was right.


This is the level of discourse you get from pro-Che folks. It's the same "reasoning" that folks use when they support anti-Israeli organizations ... or when they try to mitigate the evils of radical Islam.

LOL Che hated America because America was supporting the dictator Che was fighting

[Undesired Walrus]

Good article. However, It doesn't give many details of Che's evils. Could you provide some?

[MG1962]

Good article. However, It doesn't give many details of Che's evils. Could you provide some?

During the revolution he had a reputation for being pretty brutal on the battlefield. After the war Castro put him in charge of handling political prisoners and organising the firing squads for those less than enthusiastic about the new government

He was a little different from most revolutionaries because he never asked others to do something he was not prepared to do himself, and his bravery on the battlefield was legendary

[NoScotsman]

LOL Che hated America because America was supporting the dictator Che was fighting

I think you missed my point entirely. That Che hated America is a given... it was my first proposition. Try to spot the logical fallacy. It's worth 50 points.

[NoScotsman]

During the revolution he had a reputation for being pretty brutal on the battlefield. After the war Castro put him in charge of handling political prisoners and organising the firing squads for those less than enthusiastic about the new government

He was a little different from most revolutionaries because he never asked others to do something he was not prepared to do himself, and his bravery on the battlefield was legendary

When I think of revolutionaries like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Castro, and Che (etc) executing their own supporters (as well as like-minded intellectuals, writers, journalists, etc) I see not bravery, but cowardice. Let the weak, ignorant people live ... and kill off anyone who shows intelligence or leadership qualities.

Besides the obvious paranoia, this also demonstrates an inability to trust the currency of your own ideas. And, the history of communism is clear: it's not the state that withers away ... it's the people who wither (100 million and counting).

[MG1962]

When I think of revolutionaries like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Castro, and Che (etc) executing their own supporters (as well as like-minded intellectuals, writers, journalists, etc) I see not bravery, but cowardice. Let the weak, ignorant people live ... and kill off anyone who shows intelligence or leadership qualities.

Besides the obvious paranoia, this also demonstrates an inability to trust the currency of your own ideas. And, the history of communism is clear: it's not the state that withers away ... it's the people who wither (100 million and counting).

So you actually dont know much about Che then. Even the worst figures thrown up by historians suggest less than 200 victims at his hand.

[MG1962]

I think you missed my point entirely. That Che hated America is a given... it was my first proposition. Try to spot the logical fallacy. It's worth 50 points.

Really, would you care to explain why. John F Kennedy even said that Castro's opposition against Batista was justified and described Bastista himself as

Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries

And how did Batista get there in the first place?

Ask this man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Pr%C3%ADo_Socarr%C3%A1s

[Tricky]

"So go, if you're able
To someplace unstable
And stay there,

Whip up your hate
In some tottering state
But not here "dear".
Is that clear "dear"?

--Eva Peron to Che in the Rice-Weber musical Evita

[MG1962]

"So go, if you're able
To someplace unstable
And stay there,

Whip up your hate
In some tottering state
But not here "dear".
Is that clear "dear"?

--Eva Peron to Che in the Rice-Weber musical Evita


LOL I didn't realise musicals could be referenced as historical documents.

But I suppose the fact Peron died at least a year before Che became interested in revolutionary politics should also be ignored

[Pantaz]

So you actually dont know much about Che then. Even the worst figures thrown up by historians suggest less than 200 victims at his hand.
What number of victims is required to label a person one of the bad guys?

Furthermore, you will find quite a few historical "bad guys" with few victims killed "at his hand".

[Tricky]

But I suppose the fact Peron died at least a year before Che became interested in revolutionary politics should also be ignored
That they didn't have any known intereaction is made clear in the liner notes. The character of Che in the musical is kind of the narrator and greek chorus. He grew up in Argentina during the Perons' rise to power and it would be pretty incredible if his world view wasn't shaped by that.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've never really met any Che worshippers. I mean, I've seen the shirt often enough on TV, but never really beyond that.

And among the commies, Trotskyism, Leninism, and Maoism are the big cults I've see. Of course, this is using the definition of that word very loosely.

*Summons a Truther who likes Che for irony*

[MG1962]

What number of victims is required to label a person one of the bad guys?

Furthermore, you will find quite a few historical "bad guys" with few victims killed "at his hand".

Sorry that was a poor choice of words, he was responsible either directly or via signing of on executions for at most 200. And I will ask you, because he opposed an American installed regime, that makes him the bad guy, even though the good guy (Batista) was responsible up to 20,000 deaths by the end of his dictatorship

[MG1962]

That they didn't have any known intereaction is made clear in the liner notes. The character of Che in the musical is kind of the narrator and greek chorus. He grew up in Argentina during the Perons' rise to power and it would be pretty incredible if his world view wasn't shaped by that.

Che himself points directly to the difficulties and ultimate downfall of the Arbrenz administration in Guatemala as the primary driver for his subsequent revolutionary views.

It is more likely his father laid a lot of the ground work for Che's marxist opinions. Though according to this article his mother had a fair amount of weight in the political household

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,872604,00.html

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So you actually dont know much about Che then. Even the worst figures thrown up by historians suggest less than 200 victims at his hand.

More like two thousand.

[MG1962]

More like two thousand.

Want to more like cite a reference?

[Pantaz]

Sorry that was a poor choice of words, he was responsible either directly or via signing of on executions for at most 200. And I will ask you, because he opposed an American installed regime, that makes him the bad guy, even though the good guy (Batista) was responsible up to 20,000 deaths by the end of his dictatorship

I don't know how you come to label Batista a good guy... Just because I denounce Guevara, don't automatically assume I support the opposition!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Want to more like cite a reference?

The Butcher of La Cabana (http://ca.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_200/209_special_feature.html):

Che Guevara ordered thousands of executions
A company that sponsors tours to Cuba touts La Cabaña Fortress prison as the place where “Che helped consolidate the victory of the revolution.” Historians estimate Che "consolidated" the lives of as many as 2,000 people.

Che Guevara was a rebel in search of a cause when he met Fidel and Raul Castro in 1955, in Mexico. As an anxious soldier fighting Castro’s cause, he distinguished himself quickly and was promoted to comandante; in the Sierra Maestra mountains he enforced a zero tolerance policy toward deserters by sending execution squads to hunt them down.

Once in power, Che Guevara was appointed head of La Cabaña, where he ran one of the century’s more modest -- if no less shameful -- kangaroo courts. He did his part to purge Cuba of Batista loyalists by playing judge, jury and executioner in a manner reminiscent of Stalin’s Great Terror of the 1930s. It was here he earned the name The Butcher of La Cabaña.

His population "consolidation" continued the following year, when he oversaw the establishment of the Guanahacabibes concentration camp. As noted by Alvaro Vargas Llosa in The New Republic, Guanahacabibes set the groundwork for the Nazi-inspired confinement of undesirables in the province of Camagüey from 1965 onward.

[MG1962]

The Butcher of La Cabana (http://ca.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_200/209_special_feature.html):

Che Guevara ordered thousands of executions
A company that sponsors tours to Cuba touts La Cabaña Fortress prison as the place where “Che helped consolidate the victory of the revolution.” Historians estimate Che "consolidated" the lives of as many as 2,000 people.

LOL - you may want to get in touch with this historian

http://as.nyu.edu/object/aboutas.globalprofessor.JorgeCastaneda

He puts the total number of consolidated people across Cuba as 900 of which Chee was responsible for 197 in his book

http://www.amazon.com/Companero-Life-Death-Che-Guevara/dp/0679759409

Then


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

This guy has written the only other bio of Che I have come across that does not have questionable political movtives (ie not affilated with Havana or Marxist organisations). He puts the number at 55

http://www.amazon.com/Che-Guevara-Revolutionary-Jon-Anderson/dp/0802135587

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Humberto Fontova (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6946) agrees that the death toll of the Butcher of La Cabana was in the thousands.

[Naddig74]

I'd like to raise Che Guevara from the dead.

Just so I can kick him in the spuds.

I've met a few Che fans. They are mostly angry little boys who don't want to tidy their bedrooms.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Toronto Police Department is about to fulfill your wish.

There's a thousand che-shirt wearers torching police cars in T.O. right now.

[leftysergeant]

More like two thousand.

Che and Castro were the result of and the only apparent remedy for sicknesses caused by the pathenogen known as American Imperialism.

Cuba had become a brothel for the mob and a slave labor camp for American agri-business. Batista and the mafiosi who depended on him had to go.

My clearest memory of that period was of some American dirtbag whining about his family's frog farm having been nationalized. This struck me as unusually petty, given that Havana, at that time, was a major sex tourism destination, offering every luxury that the rich and jaded could want, while peasants were scraping a bare living out of land that was not devoted to producing sugar cane for the advancement of Spreckles Sugar.

No wonder the dudes didn't much admire free-market capitalists.

[MG1962]

Humberto Fontova (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6946) agrees that the death toll of the Butcher of La Cabana was in the thousands.

He claims 14000 and also claims Che was afraid of motor bikes. At least one of those claims is demonstrably wrong

[MaGZ]

It all started in 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che!

[MaGZ]

When I think of revolutionaries like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Castro, and Che (etc) executing their own supporters (as well as like-minded intellectuals, writers, journalists, etc) I see not bravery, but cowardice. Let the weak, ignorant people live ... and kill off anyone who shows intelligence or leadership qualities.

Besides the obvious paranoia, this also demonstrates an inability to trust the currency of your own ideas. And, the history of communism is clear: it's not the state that withers away ... it's the people who wither (100 million and counting).

Hitler does not belong on you list. The Night of the Long Knives was necessary to put down a pending coup and of course the action against the July 20th conspirators was also necessary.

[dudalb]

Hitler does not belong on you list. The Night of the Long Knives was necessary to put down a pending coup and of course the action against the July 20th conspirators was also necessary.

MaGZ and Lefty Sergeant: If someone shares our political ideology, we will whitewash and justify anything they do.

[dudalb]

He claims 14000 and also claims Che was afraid of motor bikes. At least one of those claims is demonstrably wrong

ANd for your next act you will whitewash Stalin and Mao, right?

I am so freaking tired of those on both left and right who will excuse any evil done by people who are their side of the political spectrum.

[Brainster]

LOL - you may want to get in touch with this historian

http://as.nyu.edu/object/aboutas.globalprofessor.JorgeCastaneda

He puts the total number of consolidated people across Cuba as 900 of which Chee was responsible for 197 in his book.

So roughly 6 times as many as Ted Bundy, then?

[MG1962]

ANd for your next act you will whitewash Stalin and Mao, right?

I am so freaking tired of those on both left and right who will excuse any evil done by people who are their side of the political spectrum.

You make this claim based on what?. I have not said anything in terms of wether I agree with Che or not. But when some two bit agenda driven writer throws up a figure between 7 and 14 times the total number of executions and then blames Che, I am going to react.

For the sake of the argument say I am white washing Che's behaviour, what are you doing in regard to Batista?

The demostrable fact the writer got wrong was Che and motorbikes. For his first trip Che modified a pushbike turning it into a low powered motorbike. His journal of his travels was detailed enough for the Discovery Chanel to do a doco about his first trip

Odd behaviour for someone who's afraid of motorbikes wouldn't you agree

[MG1962]

So roughly 6 times as many as Ted Bundy, then?

And 21 times less than Basita....your point?

[NWO Sentryman]

Che and Castro were the result of and the only apparent remedy for sicknesses caused by the pathenogen known as American Imperialism.

I could say the same thing about the Draka in India or Japanese China (read a bit more of S M Stirling to understand the Reference;)).

And how is US Influence a virus?

Cuba had become a brothel for the mob and a slave labor camp for American agri-business. Batista and the mafiosi who depended on him had to go.

To be replaced by a totalitarian soviet backed Police State where homosexuals were killed.

My clearest memory of that period was of some American dirtbag whining about his family's frog farm having been nationalized. This struck me as unusually petty, given that Havana, at that time, was a major sex tourism destination, offering every luxury that the rich and jaded could want, while peasants were scraping a bare living out of land that was not devoted to producing sugar cane for the advancement of Spreckles Sugar.

So somehow losing your property, which was potentially a significant source of income, is "petty"/

No wonder the dudes didn't much admire free-market capitalists.

Em, they were Marxist-Leninist Stalinists. What do you expect?

[NWO Sentryman]

It all started in 1969.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che!

Wow, just Wow (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailHistoryForever). :eye-poppi

[MG1962]

.

To be replaced by a totalitarian soviet backed Police State where homosexuals were killed.


Oh wait how did that come about again?

[NWO Sentryman]

Oh wait how did that come about again?

Maybe because Castro and co pulled a Coup d'etat against an authoritarian and corrupt government, yet replaced it with a totalitarian and just a corrupt government.

[MG1962]

Maybe because Castro and co pulled a Coup d'etat against an authoritarian and corrupt government, yet replaced it with a totalitarian and just a corrupt government.

Corrupt? evidence?

[Gazpacho]

Humberto Fontova (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6946) agrees that the death toll of the Butcher of La Cabana was in the thousands.
Frontpage is a far right propaganda site where you can read that Barack Obama is a communist and Jimmy Carter has links to Muslim terrorism.

[NWO Sentryman]

Corrupt? evidence?

The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Cuba pretty high in terms of being corrupt.

[DC]

ANd for your next act you will whitewash Stalin and Mao, right?

I am so freaking tired of those on both left and right who will excuse any evil done by people who are their side of the political spectrum.

so, not exaggerating numbers is considering whitewashing now?

[MG1962]

The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Cuba pretty high in terms of being corrupt.

I would suggest 61 out of 182 is pretty good. Mind you I do have to be nervous about any study that uses the word 'perception' in its title

[dudalb]

Corrupt? evidence?

Ok, so it is a honest brutal and totalirain regime.

[gnome]

If we hate Che, we should not lionize his enemies, but hate the environment that produced him. That a snake like Che felt like their only escape from oppression is our failure as Americans to offer something better.

This kind of communism was bigger than any individual--it's not like we could pluck Stalin, Mao, and Che from history and count on such a revolution never occurring. So reserving our hatred only for the man himself is misplaced.

[MG1962]

Ok, so it is a honest brutal and totalirain regime.

LOL and that is why I did not debate you on totalitarian, because you were right. I dont think that was Castros original plan, but it definately worked out that way

[MG1962]

If we hate Che, we should not lionize his enemies, but hate the environment that produced him. That a snake like Che felt like their only escape from oppression is our failure as Americans to offer something better.

This kind of communism was bigger than any individual--it's not like we could pluck Stalin, Mao, and Che from history and count on such a revolution never occurring. So reserving our hatred only for the man himself is misplaced.

Thats a very fair point, and another element that always has to be considered, these people and events did not happen in a vacuum. For example was the US invasion of Iraq any better or worse than the actions of Castro and Co.

Many Americans will argue it was not, because being a part of the environment and society they lived in at the time, gives them an understanding different to someone (like we are) looking back on events over 50 years ago.

[barium]

And Oliver North got his own tv-show. I guess our perceptions of a man will be skewed by political ideology.

I think Che was an interesting character up to the revolutionaries victory in Cuba. After that things started going downhill fast.

[barium]

LOL and that is why I did not debate you on totalitarian, because you were right. I dont think that was Castros original plan, but it definately worked out that way
Castro don't seem to have been much of an ideologue... I'm pretty sure Castros plan was always to be the leader, the ideology was secondary to his desire for power. His clinging to the power in Cuba is a big reason for why it turned out the way it did.

[MG1962]

I think Che was an interesting character up to the revolutionaries victory in Cuba. After that things started going downhill fast.

Yeah he definately became a legend in his own lunchtime. He and Castro were in the right place at the right time, and got very lucky. Che seemed to think it was skill, mostly his....events in the Congo and Bolivia suggest otherwise

[Darth Rotor]

Che and Castro were the result of and the only apparent remedy for sicknesses caused by the pathenogen known as American Imperialism.
Hyperbole much?

Curious: why did you use, in your rant, pathenogen rather than pathogen?

[Darth Rotor]

If we hate Che, we should not lionize his enemies, but hate the environment that produced him. That a snake like Che felt like their only escape from oppression is our failure as Americans to offer something better.
WTF?

He was an Argentine.

Why is it America's problem that Argentina left Che so bitter?

Care to share with me on that one?

Let's begin at the beginning, as Inigo Montoya might suggest.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈtʃe geˈβaɾa][4]; June 14,[1] 1928 – October 9, 1967), commonly known as El Che or simply Che, was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerrilla leader, diplomat, military theorist, and major figure of the Cuban Revolution.
America is to blame for him being a ******* for what reason?

[MG1962]

America is to blame for him being a ******* for what reason?

As outlined in post 32 and 39 of this thread

[Darth Rotor]

As outlined in post 32 and 39 of this thread

In other words, you got nuthin'

He was a whining maggot long before he left home.

[MG1962]

In other words, you got nuthin'

Well if a direct quote from President John F Kennedy counts as nothing. Then you are right

[Gazpacho]

Why is it America's problem that Argentina left Che so bitter?
It didn't. He learned to be bitter, once he saw what was going on in the world.

[Virus]

The great thing about Che is that he can double as a Palestinian.

http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/IMG_0269.JPG

[KingMerv00]

Hyperbole much?

Even if it isn't hyperbole, it doesn't necessarily speak well of Che. Overthrowing a monster does not automatically make you a saint.

[NWO Sentryman]

MG1962, Gnome - So It was because of Russia's poverty that we should blame America for the Bolsheviks' brutality? Or what about WW2?

These men only sought power and Ideology was a means to an end. If that were the case, then why was a totalitarian police state set up in Cuba?

I could see some people in the Drakaverse saying the same things about the Draka. After all, they only wanted a better life and it was a failure for America to present an alternative.

[NoScotsman]

The great irony of this thread: If Che were a JREF moderator, he would have deleted this thread already.

And some of you would have been shot in the head... for not being zealous enough in your praise of him.

What's next for JREF? A pro-Stalin thread? A Pol Pot appreciation day?

Maybe if I invoke Hitler I can Godwin-law an end to this stupid thread... So here goes: Hitler hated America (like Che). Hitler killed people not "loyal enough" to him (like Che). Hitler controlled the press (like Che/Castro). Hitler hated Jews (Che hated blacks). Hitler conscripted people unwillingly to fight for "his cause" (like Che). Hitler seized private property for his own use (like Che). Hitler didn't personally execute innocent people (whoops!) Hitler wore a silly uniform (check). Hitler liked to be idolized like a god (check). Hitler invaded foreign countries (check). Hitler had goofy looking facial hair (check).

I lose :)

[Travis]

So if Che gets a pass because he only had like 200 people lined up and shot for their political beliefs then does that mean that Obama can too? When do we get to put together a list of 200 Obama opponents to be "disposed of?"

[DC]

I always had troubles with Che, while i call myself a socialist, i always condemned his violence and totalitarianism.

a few years ago i met someone with a Che t-shirt on, so i started talking about Che...... the guy didnt even know who Che is....... his wife buyed the shirt for him.

i think Che is nowadays more a trademark than a political statement.

[Ian Osborne]

i think Che is nowadays more a trademark than a political statement.

And that's the ultimate irony.

[DC]

And that's the ultimate irony.

oh indeed it is.

[barium]

So if Che gets a pass because he only had like 200 people lined up and shot for their political beliefs then does that mean that Obama can too? When do we get to put together a list of 200 Obama opponents to be "disposed of?"

Executing people who helped Batista kill 20,000 people holding opposing political views.

If anything analogous to Batistas regime would have happened under the Bush administration I bet you'd have a lot of people sentenced to death or life in prison.

I'm guessing a lot of the people responsible for the Darfur genocide would deserve the same treatment. And it'd be a somewhat more relevant comparsion, even if that was more about ethnicity and religion.

[Gazpacho]

So if Che gets a pass because he only had like 200 people lined up and shot for their political beliefs then does that mean that Obama can too? When do we get to put together a list of 200 Obama opponents to be "disposed of?"
There's some evidence that he's already working on it (http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-many-Americans-are-tar-by-Glenn-Greenwald-100627-567.html).

[Cleon]

Humberto Fontova (http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6946) agrees that the death toll of the Butcher of La Cabana was in the thousands.

A Canadian's Men's "lifestyle" website and Front Page Magazine - whose penchant for propaganda is about as subtle as Pravda's - are not exactly the strongest of historical citations.

[Cleon]

ANd for your next act you will whitewash Stalin and Mao, right?

I am so freaking tired of those on both left and right who will excuse any evil done by people who are their side of the political spectrum.

And I'm so freaking tired of you accusing everyone of "whitewashing" and "defending" these characters for having the gall to dispute some of the claims made about them.

It doesn't matter one bit to you whether those claims are actually true, what matters is that Stalin, Che, Kim, or whoever is properly condemned and criticized with every breath.

"Che killed hundreds, not thousands" - how the hell is that a "whitewashing" of Che Guevara? If I say "Hitler killed millions, not hundreds of millions," that's not a "defense" of the Holocaust.

You may not like these characters. That doesn't mean that every claim about them is true just because it paints them in a bad light. And pointing out that a claim isn't true, or is massively exaggerated, isn't "whitewashing." It's actually called skepticism.

Your shtick is dishonest and tired. Get a new one.

[Shadowdweller]

What's next for JREF? A pro-Stalin thread? A Pol Pot appreciation day?

Yeah, because the execution of officials who had comprised and helped the Batista regime kill thousands is totally the same as conducting campaigns of genocide against those with differing political viewpoints.

:rolleyes:

[MG1962]

MG1962, Gnome - So It was because of Russia's poverty that we should blame America for the Bolsheviks' brutality? Or what about WW2?

You have such a simplisitic view of the world dont you. America good, eveyone and thing else bad. I guess thats too bad for the 4000 Cubans killed at the Bay of Pigs.

You argue that we are saying the US should have offered a better alternative. You are wrong. People are saying the US should have allowed the Cubans and other countries in the region that Eisenhower interfered with the right to self determination.

Castro arrived in Cuba with 23 men, two years later he'd toppled a government. You dont do that unless the people want it to happen

[DC]

You have such a simplisitic view of the world dont you. America good, eveyone and thing else bad. I guess thats too bad for the 4000 Cubans killed at the Bay of Pigs.

You argue that we are saying the US should have offered a better alternative. You are wrong. People are saying the US should have allowed the Cubans and other countries in the region that Eisenhower interfered with the right to self determination.

Castro arrived in Cuba with 23 men, two years later he'd toppled a government. You dont do that unless the people want it to happen

huh? i thought Castro was born and raised in Cuba as a Child of pretty rich parents, where he started demonstrations with his fathers employers.

[MG1962]

huh? i thought Castro was born and raised in Cuba as a Child of pretty rich parents, where he started demonstrations with his fathers employers.

He was - however he had been living in Mexico for a few years after doing time as a political prisoner in Cuba

[DC]

He was - however he had been living in Mexico for a few years after doing time as a political prisoner in Cuba

ah ok. was confused :)

[MG1962]

ah ok. was confused :)

Thats alright, welcome to my world ;)

[DC]

:D

[NWO Sentryman]

The Czar was a :rule10: whom the British and french supported. Does that mean the Bolsheviks were right to do what they did because they had "self determination" and the people's will?

What does People's Will and self determination not justify? The Rwanda Genocide? The Bolsheviks' mass murder?

IIRC Eisenhower only interfered with Guatemala and was givign tepid support to Batista.

[DC]

The Czar was a :rule10: whom the British and french supported. Does that mean the Bolsheviks were right to do what they did because they had "self determination" and the people's will?

What does People's Will and self determination not justify? The Rwanda Genocide? The Bolsheviks' mass murder?

IIRC Eisenhower only interfered with Guatemala and was givign tepid support to Batista.

what is justified to prevent a country falling into Communist hands?

[MG1962]

What does People's Will and self determination not justify? The Rwanda Genocide? The Bolsheviks' mass murder?

You seem to be struggling with the concept. Here is a nice basic definition to help you out

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-determination


IIRC Eisenhower only interfered with Guatemala and was givign tepid support to Batista.[/quote]

Batista over threw a democratically elected government in 1952. Why didn't the US impose trade sanctions, and stage a Bay Of Pigs invasion then?

[NWO Sentryman]

Self determination is not absolute. Case in point, US Civil War.

Batista was not aligned with a serious enemy of the United States (the USSR) and had not threatened US interests. Eisenhower, or truman in this case, did not give batista orders to overthrow the us govt.

and DC, there are a variety of measures. Support for opposition groups (i.e. the Contras, the Peruvian Government against Shining Path, the KMT, the White Russians), sanctions (as with Cuba), with invasion only for circumstances such as attempted annexation (Vietnam and Korea). Communism today is largely a facade in countries like China/Vietnam, and the only serious practicioner is North Korea.

[DC]

Self determination is not absolute. Case in point, US Civil War.

Batista was not aligned with a serious enemy of the United States (the USSR) and had not threatened US interests. Eisenhower, or truman in this case, did not give batista orders to overthrow the us govt.

and DC, there are a variety of measures. Support for opposition groups (i.e. the Contras, the Peruvian Government against Shining Path, the KMT, the White Russians), sanctions (as with Cuba), with invasion only for circumstances such as attempted annexation (Vietnam and Korea). Communism today is largely a facade in countries like China/Vietnam, and the only serious practicioner is North Korea.

amazing what everything is justified in your eyes, when it serves your ideology :)

btw, there are no practitioners of Communism as described by Karl Marx.

[MG1962]

Batista was not aligned with a serious enemy of the United States (the USSR) and had not threatened US interests. Eisenhower, or truman in this case, did not give batista orders to overthrow the us govt.

Wait? You think Castro was aligned with the Soviets from the start?

You may want to study this

http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1959/Cuban-Revolution/12295509433704-2/

[NWO Sentryman]

Wait? You think Castro was aligned with the Soviets from the start?

You may want to study this

Yeah, the same way Mao was "pro america" :rolleyes:

And the Mitrokhin Archive shows that Castro did indeed seek Soviet Support from as early as 1956.

[NWO Sentryman]

amazing what everything is justified in your eyes, when it serves your ideology :)

btw, there are no practitioners of Communism as described by Karl Marx.

Might say look in the mirror to that.

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy has returned.

[DC]

Might say look in the mirror to that.

Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy has returned.

:rolleyes: yeah thats why i condemn Che and Castro for example.


and sorry, when you believe NK is a serious practitioner of Communism, then i must conclude you don't know what Communism is.

[NWO Sentryman]

'll give you that one, although i aimed it more towards MG1962 and Gazpacho

Well, i was responding to your fallacious claim that there are/were no communist states.

[DC]

'll give you that one, although i aimed it more towards MG1962 and Gazpacho

Well, i was responding to your fallacious claim that there are/were no communist states.

but there are no such countries atm that would fit the Communist model.

[Gazpacho]

IIRC Eisenhower only interfered with Guatemala and was givign tepid support to Batista.
If that was his "only" intervention (overthrowing a president who did nothing more than step on the empire's toes) he really hit the ball out of the park, didn't he? And Che had a front-row seat.

[NWO Sentryman]

In Latin America, i should have specified. And it only overthrew Arbenz due to Cold War fears.

And the US ain't the Imperium of Man. When was the last time it ordered Exterminatus on any country in the world? Nor is it the Domination of the Draka, otherwise 90% of the world would either be chained to them or impaled in a gruesome manner.

[Gazpacho]

In Latin America, i should have specified.
Yes, I know what you meant.

And it only overthrew Arbenz due to Cold War fears.
Do you think that makes it OK? Really? A country has its civil government destroyed, and its politics are reduced to warfare, because Eisenhower was "afraid." Never mind that his fears were created and manipulated by the shareholders of the UFC.

And the US ain't the Imperium of Man. When was the last time it ordered Exterminatus on any country in the world? Nor is it the Domination of the Draka, otherwise 90% of the world would either be chained to them or impaled in a gruesome manner.
OK, I looked these up to find out what you're talking about and... :rolleyes:

[NWO Sentryman]

While i agree that the guatemala affair was inexcusable, there is no evidence that it was on the behest of UFC. After all, they only lost land that they werent using anyway and were compensated for it by Arbenz.

So any presence of communism ever was only "created and manipulated" by corporations who had the morality of a Captain Planet villain? Conspiracy theories is that way. :rolleyes:

Well, you said the US was an empire, and i cited 2 examples (albeit fictional) of empires. But for real world examples, the Second Reich and Alexander's Empire. Did the US conquer every nation that it came across? Did it expand by the sword?

[ddt]

While i agree that the guatemala affair was inexcusable, there is no evidence that it was on the behest of UFC. After all, they only lost land that they werent using anyway and were compensated for it by Arbenz.
Others may chime in with better sources, but here's a quote from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat):
Arbenz instigated sweeping land reform acts that antagonized the U.S.-based multinational United Fruit Company, which had large stakes in the old order of Guatemala and lobbied various levels of U.S. to take action against Arbenz.[2] Both Dulles and his brother were shareholders of United Fruit Company.

Furthermore, UFC was not happy with the compensation Arbenz wanted to pay. UFC had for years been grossly undervaluing the land in their tax filings. Arbenz offered them the value they declared in those tax filings. :D

[NWO Sentryman]

texas sharpshooter fallacy at it again i see. Just because the secretary of state had stock in UFC doesnt mean that they did the coup. Besides, IIRC, UFC underwent Chapter 7 in the 70s. So much for Corporate control of the US :rolleyes:

[Gazpacho]

While i agree that the guatemala affair was inexcusable, there is no evidence that it was on the behest of UFC.
My goodness, what do you want? Edward Bernays' proud admission of his efforts to tar Arbenz isn't enough for you?

Did it expand by the sword?
Um.... yes.

[DC]

texas sharpshooter fallacy at it again i see. Just because the secretary of state had stock in UFC doesnt mean that they did the coup. Besides, IIRC, UFC underwent Chapter 7 in the 70s. So much for Corporate control of the US :rolleyes:

be careful when you go into details and debate accusations, that might be considered a whitewash by some.

[ddt]

texas sharpshooter fallacy at it again i see. Just because the secretary of state had stock in UFC doesnt mean that they did the coup. Besides, IIRC, UFC underwent Chapter 7 in the 70s. So much for Corporate control of the US :rolleyes:

You conveniently forgot the part where UFC lobbied. I guess in your world view, ITT didn't lobby against Allende's Chile either. And that the brother of the Secretary of State was head of the CIA and had stock too.

And well, I'm completely convinced that because UFC went belly-up in the 1970s, they couldn't have lobbied in the 1950s for government support.

[NWO Sentryman]

What i meant about the Imperial Germany comparison was that did America devour whole countries completely?

And The coup was not done on behalf of United Fruit. Just because Bernays was the spin doctor does not mean that it was on behalf of the corporations. By that logic, any information about communism being a real threat ever was "created and manupulated" by corporations who had the morality of an Ecovillain from Captain Planet. More likely, the CIA was afraid of Communism, which was a real threat at the time, with the Korean War recently ending and the Fall of China to Mao being fresh in their minds.

And of course ITT would go against Allende. He had just taken much of their income without compensating them. Besides, he was an avowed marxist with links to the KGB, as the Mitrokhin Archive attested. Did ITT overthrow Allende? no. It was Pinochet, on the orders of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies in their 22 August resolution declaring allende was in breach of the Chilean constitution which was also consistent with many Supreme Court rulings.

[Gazpacho]

What i meant about the Imperial Germany comparison was that did America devour whole countries completely?
Again, yes.

And The coup was not done on behalf of United Fruit. Just because Bernays was the spin doctor does not mean that it was on behalf of the corporations. By that logic, any information about communism being a real threat ever was "created and manupulated" by corporations
UFC provided critical information on which Eisenhower based his decision to overthrow Arbenz. There are many other similar cases in the Cold War, but they're irrelevant to what happened in this one.

[NWO Sentryman]

IIRC, mexico, Spain, canada, france and russia still exist. Although i'll give you hawaii which was more controversial politics than outright invasion depending on who you ask.

Providing info =/= overthrow on behalf of source

And Communism was a real threat, as the mitrokhin archives as well as former KGB figures such as Oleg Kalugin attest to.

[Gazpacho]

IIRC, mexico, Spain, canada, france and russia still exist.
Half of Mexico still exists. Not that Mexico itself was any less an imperial creation.

Although i'll give you hawaii which was more controversial politics than outright invasion depending on who you ask.
You should also give me the Phillipines and Cuba. Their present-day independence matters as much as India's and Jordan's. And I'll toss in the Cherokee Nation and Western Indian Confederacy, the most organized of the Indian states that the US overran.

American imperialism is sophisticated, not stupid. It reflects an understanding that you don't have to go as far as outright annexation to dominate a country. In this respect it's no different from the first French Empire, Großdeutschland, or the USSR with its eastern European clients.

Providing info =/= overthrow on behalf of source
I'll ask again, could anything possibly convince you?

[NWO Sentryman]

actually, it was 1/3 that mexico renounced at the treaty of Guadalpe Hidalgo in exchange for the US holding quite a bit of its debt and also sold a bit of territory to the US under the gadsden purchase.

The Philippines was a Spanish colony which was sold to the US after the war, not an independent state until 1946, which the US worked towards. Actually, as for cuba, quite a bit of the population requested annexation to the us, but that was tuned down and never happened. The Cherokee nation and WIC's claims werent recognised IIRC.

America aint an empire. Sorry bud. By your logic, ANY nation in the world is imperialist (i.e Canada WRT Iceland, Tanzania, The dominant EU member states, India, Mexico etc.).

Conjecture and wild conspiracy theories (i.e. us is controlled by a cabal of captain planet ecovillain-esque corporations) dont convince me.

[Gazpacho]

I'm a few years too old to have ever watched Captain Planet. You can blame my commie-symp tendencies on the Smurfs, if you want. The evidence that PBSUCCESS was done at behest of a corporation (knowingly or gullibly, it didn't matter to the Guatemalans) is readily available today. If you don't want to look at it, that's too bad for you.

e: Ah, I see. You won't accept anything short of a Hollywood-style exposition of the entire plan (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustBetweenYouAndMe). Well, there's a reason that looks so silly in movies.

[NWO Sentryman]

Actually, declassified documents point to my case that it was not the UFC nationalisation that caused the overthrow (otherwise, then why did the CIA plot arbenz' overthrow before 1951, long before UFC land was threatened) - rather, it was gear of communism.

[NWO Sentryman]

i checked the National Security Archive's specific documents regarding PBSUCCESS, and i cannot find anything saying that they were doing ti at the behest of United Fruit.

[gnome]

WTF?

He was an Argentine.

Why is it America's problem that Argentina left Che so bitter?

Care to share with me on that one?

Let's begin at the beginning, as Inigo Montoya might suggest.

America is to blame for him being a ******* for what reason?

America is not to blame for Che in particular. When I say America's failure, I mean that we missed a huge opportunity to prevent a communist revolution from occurring in the first place, by being on the side of a genuine revolution for liberty instead of supporting the existing oppression.

Surely that would have been useful in hindsight, not to mention more in line with our values?

[Telaynay's G'son]

actually, it was 1/3 that mexico renounced at the treaty of Guadalpe Hidalgo in exchange for the US holding quite a bit of its debt and also sold a bit of territory to the US under the gadsden purchase.

The Philippines was a Spanish colony which was sold to the US after the war, not an independent state until 1946, which the US worked towards. Actually, as for cuba, quite a bit of the population requested annexation to the us, but that was tuned down and never happened. The Cherokee nation and WIC's claims werent recognised IIRC.

They (Cherokee) weren't and then they were however, the SCOTUS rulling was ignored/defied by a sitting US president.*


America aint an empire. Sorry bud. By your logic, ANY nation in the world is imperialist (i.e Canada WRT Iceland, Tanzania, The dominant EU member states, India, Mexico etc.).

Conjecture and wild conspiracy theories (i.e. us is controlled by a cabal of captain planet ecovillain-esque corporations) dont convince me.

http://www.answers.com/topic/cherokee-nation-v-georgia

[NWO Sentryman]

Gazpacho, i checked the National Security Archive, which is much better than any Conspiracy Theory site, and has access to the original documents. I can find no evidence, none whatsoever that it was instigated by United Fruit.

[Gazpacho]

Sentryman, you (probably) will not find a document that says "let's overthrow Arbenz to protect the United Fruit Company" because, contrary to your suggestions, the people involved did not think of themselves as villains. They believed they were good guys and used language that served that belief. So you will see documents that say "overthrow Arbenz to stop Kremlin's evil plan" written in a context where, due to existing class prejudices and the way information was managed, the two goals were increasingly intertwined.

Since it was later established (by the CIA's own efforts) that there was no evil Kremlin plan in Guatemala, what was the US responding to, objectively? Fear... based on what?

[NWO Sentryman]

Here's a great essay i found on the matter.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.1/streeter.html

As well as that, it also notes that the Eisenhower administration pursued antitrust suits against the United Fruit which were long delayed. As well as that, concerns were raised well before arbenz made his move on UFC. One should also note that Eisenhower was an ardent anti-communist, whose administration just had to deal with the Korean War. As well as that, the cia was determined not to suffer china 1949 again.

[Travis]

Executing people who helped Batista kill 20,000 people holding opposing political views.

If anything analogous to Batistas regime would have happened under the Bush administration I bet you'd have a lot of people sentenced to death or life in prison.

I'm guessing a lot of the people responsible for the Darfur genocide would deserve the same treatment. And it'd be a somewhat more relevant comparsion, even if that was more about ethnicity and religion.

Yeah, because the execution of officials who had comprised and helped the Batista regime kill thousands is totally the same as conducting campaigns of genocide against those with differing political viewpoints.

:rolleyes:

The problem when you're just lining up people to be shot is that they are only "accused" of these things. Or are we to believe that everyone Stalin had killed was in fact an enemy of the USSR?

[Orphia Nay]

Not sure where this link belongs, but as it references Che, it can go here for now.

(NSFW - a few swear words and photos of a big phallic drawing on a raised bridge)

http://animalnewyork.com/2010/06/why-russian-art-group-voina-dicked-a-st-petersburg-bridge/

In the early morn of Che Guevara’s birthday, the group psyched out bascule bridge guards and made their way onto Liteiny Bridge. In 23 seconds flat, Voina painted a 213-feet-tall, 89-feet-wide phallus dubbed “Giant Galactic Space Dick.”

[Mark6]

I like the variation found here. (http://store.theworstpageintheuniverse.com/)
I like this one (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/19/che-guevaras-granddaughter/4) even better!

[Polaris]

America is not to blame for Che in particular. When I say America's failure, I mean that we missed a huge opportunity to prevent a communist revolution from occurring in the first place, by being on the side of a genuine revolution for liberty instead of supporting the existing oppression.

Surely that would have been useful in hindsight, not to mention more in line with our values?

If Michael Corleone saw it coming, why didn't the CIA? :D

This is something that's always kind of given me one of those between-the-eyes headaches. If for nothing else than face, the US during the Cold War had to support its allies for better or worse to contain the Soviets. It made good strategic sense, and sometimes this meant taking a bite of the ****-sandwich and pretending it tasted like hickory-smoked bacon (supporting a Batista or a Pahlavi).

But when the ship was obviously sinking, as in Cuba or Iran or Vietnam, why not support the popular will instead, or at the very least stop bailing? It's not like the Soviets lost any sleep filling that niche.

I know, hindsight is 20-20, but supporting obviously distasteful rulers against their own people, and creating a fertile ground for the strategic expansion of the main enemy, just to maintain a facade of solidarity seems extremely short-sighted to me.

[Shadowdweller]

I know, hindsight is 20-20, but supporting obviously distasteful rulers against their own people, and creating a fertile ground for the strategic expansion of the main enemy, just to maintain a facade of solidarity seems extremely short-sighted to me.
I'm certainly not going to defend US policy with respect to either Cuba or Iran, but I don't think it's quite so simple as that. One of the ways in which politicians classically shore up support is by demonizing a third party and then casting them as an imminent threat. Both Cuba and Iran have used extensive propaganda against the US - to the extent of making claims that are not remotely possible. Witness, for instance, claims by Khamenei's regime in Iran that protests regarding the recent presidential election were actually the result of foreign interference. As said regime forcibly put down said protests.

Regardless of how fairly the US or any other world power chooses to act toward other nations, they are convenient scapegoats merely by being a world power.

[theprestige]

If Michael Corleone saw it coming, why didn't the CIA? :D

This is something that's always kind of given me one of those between-the-eyes headaches. If for nothing else than face, the US during the Cold War had to support its allies for better or worse to contain the Soviets. It made good strategic sense, and sometimes this meant taking a bite of the ****-sandwich and pretending it tasted like hickory-smoked bacon (supporting a Batista or a Pahlavi).

But when the ship was obviously sinking, as in Cuba or Iran or Vietnam, why not support the popular will instead, or at the very least stop bailing? It's not like the Soviets lost any sleep filling that niche.

I know, hindsight is 20-20, but supporting obviously distasteful rulers against their own people, and creating a fertile ground for the strategic expansion of the main enemy, just to maintain a facade of solidarity seems extremely short-sighted to me.
When the chips are down, you can always count on the U.S. government to cut you loose and stab you in the back?

It'd be hard to convince anybody to fight the good fight against the commie hordes, with that kind of strategy,don't you think?

Sticking with Batista all the way to the bitter end may have been seen as having valuable PR effects on other potential allies in the cold war.

ETA: I mean, you can't very well back the existing ruler against a communist revolution and foment your own non-communist rebellion at the same time. And by the time you know the commies are going to win, it's a bit late to take over their revolution for your own purposes, don't you think?

Not to mention the fallout if you got caught even laying the groundwork for such a thing.

[gnome]

So what do you do if the commies keep gaining support because the country that is supposed to be the beacon of democracy and freedom to the world is too busy helping thugocracies stay in power?

Sometimes it sounds like chicken and egg.

But I feel we were too willing to keep the cycle going, and undermining even our own self-serving reasons for compromising our values.

[ddt]

When the chips are down, you can always count on the U.S. government to cut you loose and stab you in the back?

It'd be hard to convince anybody to fight the good fight against the commie hordes, with that kind of strategy,don't you think?

Sticking with Batista all the way to the bitter end may have been seen as having valuable PR effects on other potential allies in the cold war.
There's more alternatives. What about pressing them to moderate their course? What about (publicly) saying the US can't support an authoritarian regime - after all, the US is the beacon of democracy?

And in other cases, such as Guatemala, the US actively conspired against a democratically elected, left, government. Half of Western Europe, on average, had a social-democratic government at the time, but outside that, anyone left-of-center was branded a "communist".


ETA: I mean, you can't very well back the existing ruler against a communist revolution and foment your own non-communist rebellion at the same time. And by the time you know the commies are going to win, it's a bit late to take over their revolution for your own purposes, don't you think?
Or see them not per se for communist revolutions. AFAIK, Castro didn't start out as a communist. Neither did Allende, or the Sandinistas. Still, the US spent a lot of effort in toppling them, and in the process, they radicalized.

[Pardalis]

AFAIK, Castro didn't start out as a communist. Neither did Allende, or the Sandinistas. Still, the US spent a lot of effort in toppling them, and in the process, they radicalized.

As If they needed to be radicalized...:rolleyes:

Wow, what a twisted view of history. I imagine you think all the torture done by Castro and the Sandinistas on their political prisoners is all America's fault? Are you saying that they were forced to torture their own people because of America's interrefence, that they wouldn't have done it otherwise?

You can excuse alot of atrocities with that line of thought.

The Sandinistas' killing of Miskito Indians, all America's fault too? The common graves found in the 1990's, the institutionalized racism in Cuba?

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

Latin American historian Thomas E. Skidmore says there had been 550 executions in the first six months of 1959. British historian Hugh Thomas, in his study Cuba or the pursuit of freedom stated that "perhaps" 5,000 executions had taken place by 1970, whilst The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators ascertained that there had been 2,113 political executions between the years of 1958-67. The author of the Historical Atlas, an online personal compilation of various sources, concludes: The dividing line between those who have an axe to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range. The Cuban American National Foundation states that since the revolution 12,000 political executions have taken place. Dr. Armando Lago, of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, a group of academics whose board of directors is almost entirely Cuban exiles, states that between 15,000 and 18,000 Cubans were executed for counterrevolutionary activities since the revolution. He also says that 250 Cubans disappeared during the period, 500 died in prison for lack of medical attention, 500 were killed in prison by guards and there were 150 extrajudicial assassinations of women.

[gnome]

I don't think the point is to excuse atrocities, but to describe that our actions were counter-productive to our goals.

[MG1962]

Sticking with Batista all the way to the bitter end may have been seen as having valuable PR effects on other potential allies in the cold war.

Thats a very intriguing observation, and one I must admit I had not thought of. It would also explain the US policy in Indonesia a few years later

[Gazpacho]

the institutionalized racism in Cuba?
Castro did not introduce racism to Cuba. Do you have any particular problem with how he's handled it?

(I would not be surprised if, upon digging into the history, I found out that America had done much to promote racism in Cuba. It certainly did so in Hispaniola.)

[NWO Sentryman]

There's more alternatives. What about pressing them to moderate their course? What about (publicly) saying the US can't support an authoritarian regime - after all, the US is the beacon of democracy?

And in other cases, such as Guatemala, the US actively conspired against a democratically elected, left, government. Half of Western Europe, on average, had a social-democratic government at the time, but outside that, anyone left-of-center was branded a "communist".


Or see them not per se for communist revolutions. AFAIK, Castro didn't start out as a communist. Neither did Allende, or the Sandinistas. Still, the US spent a lot of effort in toppling them, and in the process, they radicalized.

Getting hardline marxists (which arbenz was not) to become european social democrats is ASB to say the least. Heck you had a better chance of getting operation sealion to succeed.

IIRC, the Sandinistas and Allende were indellibly linked to the KGB since 1959, and allende was a hardcore stalinist. They had beeen getting kremlin money and arms for quite a while before they came to power. However, Allende's incompetence was making the kgb facepalm across the board.

As done saying it was because of us efforts to stop them that radicalised them, i can give the same excuse WRT the Bolsheviks.

[NWO Sentryman]

Ad the us would be hypocrites for saying they cant support authoritarian regimes given their massive support for Stalin in WW2.

[Gazpacho]

IIRC, the Sandinistas and Allende were indellibly linked to the KGB since 1959, and allende was a hardcore stalinist.
You recall right-wing propaganda correctly, but not history.

Would you know imperialism if you saw it in the present day? Why does the US protect a pipeline in Colombia from Marxist rebels? Why did the US send counter-insurgency trainers to the royal government in Nepal? Why is there still an embargo against Cuba?

I don't think it's about the Russkies anymore.

[NWO Sentryman]

So any unpleasant truths about left wing movements is "right-wing propaganda?"

Nope. That all came from the Mitrokhin Archive, which shows conclusive proof of KGB involvement in Latin America. Unless you are willing to call every University of Cambrige publication "right-wing propaganda"

[NWO Sentryman]

You recall right-wing propaganda correctly, but not history.

Would you know imperialism if you saw it in the present day? Why does the US protect a pipeline in Colombia from Marxist rebels? Why did the US send counter-insurgency trainers to the royal government in Nepal? Why is there still an embargo against Cuba?

I don't think it's about the Russkies anymore.

maybe the marxist rebels want to create a totalitarian state and are on the US and EU terrorist lists. And the pipeline provides the US with energy, and it is not about ZOMG evol corporations rule the world for lulz. Maybe the aid of counter insurgency is to help allies against terrorists. And when did the US annex Colombia/Nepal?

The Pipeline is also a key economic asset for colombia and could help the nation's recovery, so of course its going to get a high priority protection.

The embargo against cuba has been lifted partially, but was due to the direct threat of nuclear annihilation. one does not forget that so easily.

And Marxists always seem to get a free pass in your worldview i note, dismissing anything bad about them as "right-wing propaganda"

[Gazpacho]

maybe the marxist rebels want to create a totalitarian state
The Maoists won in Nepal. Where's the totalitarian state?

and are on the US and EU terrorist lists.
Good to know that the US can put a group on a list any time they threaten its imperial objectives and then do whatever it wants.

And the pipeline provides the US with energy
What's it called when a country obtains countries' resources by force?

And when did the US annex Colombia/Nepal?
You keep bringing this up like it's relevant. The USSR did not annex Eastern Europe or Afghanistan. Japan did not annex the Co-Prosperity Sphere. Belgium did not annex the Congo during the Free State period. Russia has not annexed South Ossetia.

And Marxists always seem to get a free pass in your worldview i note, dismissing anything bad about them as "right-wing propaganda"
Show me where the Mitrokhin archive says that Allende was a hardcore Stalinist. Or any remark from him to that effect.

[NWO Sentryman]

The Maoists have been forced into a coalition which limits their plans. However, they are more of the Deng Xiaoping model than hardcore maoist, which may be of some consolation.

You lost all credibility when you defended FARC, who are among the worst terrorist groups in Latin America, if not the world. As well as that, they are drug traffickers, kidnappers, murderers, basically the scum of the earth.

when did the US invade and force the colombians at the end of a sword to build the pipeline for them? As well as that, it is at high risk of terrorist attacks and the environmental catastrophe would be horrific. Of course it is going to need protection. So any country's presence in another nation EVER is imperialist then? by that standard then, we all are.

Japan was the de facto ruler of the co-prosperity sphere, as was belgium WRT Congo. The US is not. However, it is very influential in world politics, due to its nature. Hegemon would be more appropriate than Empire.

red herring. And allende did remark in an interview in regis debray about wanting "total, scientific socialist marxism" in an interview with regis debray which is right out of any stalinist handbook.

[ddt]

Getting hardline marxists (which arbenz was not) to become european social democrats is ASB to say the least. Heck you had a better chance of getting operation sealion to succeed.
What is "ASB"? And for the rest, the grammar of that sentence is so poor that I don't understand what you mean.


IIRC, the Sandinistas and Allende were indellibly linked to the KGB since 1959,
Evidence?
and allende was a hardcore stalinist.
LOL. That's why he was the leader of the socialist party and not of the communist party which also existed in Chile.


They had beeen getting kremlin money and arms for quite a while before they came to power.
Arms? Allende? Evidence?

And if they got money, it doesn't mean they were communists. Or, by the same token, meant the US propping up Batista that he was a democrat? :boggled: It just meant that the SU thought it was a smart investment to piss off the US.

The central point seems to woosh past your head. The US supported dictators who brutally suppressed their own population, and toppled democratically elected governments like Arbenz and Allende (mind, the support of the US against Allende even started before he was elected! and included illegal means). So much for the defender of freedom and democracy.

[NWO Sentryman]

"asb" means Alien Space Bats, which suggest extreme implausibility. And i was comparing your proposal to Operation Sealion, which was a wacky plan from WW2 which would never have worked.

And Allende was linked with the KGB. The Mitrokhin Archive also talks about his money from the KGB. The Mitrokhin Archive confirms KGB links to the Sandinistas, as well as USSR's arms deals, loans and training for the Sandinistas. Why else did they get all that Eastern Bloc support?

Allende worked quite a lot with the Communist Party. And he was a Marxist, if not a hardcore stalinist, epecially as he weeped when he learned that Stalin had died and spoke about how great he was.

And the US supported Stalin in WW2 to topple a democratically elected adolf hitler. did that nullify any just claim to defeat the Axis and nullify any claim to being a defender of freedom and democracy?

BTW, no evidence has come out that the US overthrew allende. In fact, Pinochet did it not on the orders of washington, but on the Chamber of deputies in their resolution which listed many constitutional abuses by Allende's government.

So does being democratically elected mean a get out of jail free card?

[ddt]

"asb" means Alien Space Bats, which suggest extreme implausibility. And i was comparing your proposal to Operation Sealion, which was a wacky plan from WW2 which would never have worked.
I'm aware of Operation Sealion. Still, the sentence is not clear, so could you rephrase it, with attention to proper grammar and without inclusion of references to Draka, ASB, Captain America or other juvenile stuff?


And Allende was linked with the KGB. The Mitrokhin Archive also talks about his money from the KGB. The Mitrokhin Archive confirms KGB links to the Sandinistas, as well as USSR's arms deals, loans and training for the Sandinistas. Why else did they get all that Eastern Bloc support?
And the arms that Allende got provided by the KGB?

And still, it doesn't say Allende or the Sandinistas were communists themselves.


Allende worked quite a lot with the Communist Party. And he was a Marxist, if not a hardcore stalinist, epecially as he weeped when he learned that Stalin had died and spoke about how great he was.
Backpedaling? And I'm sure you have quotes to back this all up, not just blanket referrals to the Mitrokhin Archives (which seems to be your only source apart from Captain America).


And the US supported Stalin in WW2 to topple a democratically elected adolf hitler. did that nullify any just claim to defeat the Axis and nullify any claim to being a defender of freedom and democracy?
I don't remember Hitler to have been the democratically elected leader of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg or France (etc.).


BTW, no evidence has come out that the US overthrew allende. In fact, Pinochet did it not on the orders of washington, but on the Chamber of deputies in their resolution which listed many constitutional abuses by Allende's government.
I didn't claim that, but that the US supported efforts to not have him elected, earlier attempts to have him toppled, and general efforts to destabilize the country.

[NWO Sentryman]

Unfortunateely, the Mitrokhin Archive isnt available online :o. However, i do recommend a look at the Latin America section of volume 2.

ome more evidence, from Nikolai Leonev: http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_2/doc_1140.html

And the Sandinistas were communists. Big time. Why else did they hire Eastern Bloc support and dedicate themselves to marxist leninism?

And i spot a fallacy wrt claiming i cited captain america, which i never did. I also cited the Chamber of Deputies resolution, which condemns allende for his blatant disregard of the Chilean constitution. I also cited a regis debray interview where allende describes his goal:

* As for the bourgeois state, at the present moment, we are seeking to overcome it, to overthrow it.… Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism. Regis debray interview 1970

And was therefore treason, and reason enough to have him overthrown.

Hitler was elected to Germany in 1933 and in 34 (when he became fuhrer). The US supported his overthrow when they aligned with a dictator (Stalin). Does that nullify any claim to being a defender of freedom in your view?

[DC]

Unfortunateely, the Mitrokhin Archive isnt available online :o. However, i do recommend a look at the Latin America section of volume 2.

ome more evidence, from Nikolai Leonev: http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_2/doc_1140.html

And the Sandinistas were communists. Big time. Why else did they hire Eastern Bloc support and dedicate themselves to marxist leninism?

And i spot a fallacy wrt claiming i cited captain america, which i never did. I also cited the Chamber of Deputies resolution, which condemns allende for his blatant disregard of the Chilean constitution. I also cited a regis debray interview where allende describes his goal:

Regis debray interview 1970

And was therefore treason, and reason enough to have him overthrown.

Hitler was elected to Germany in 1933 and in 34 (when he became fuhrer). The US supported his overthrow when they aligned with a dictator (Stalin). Does that nullify any claim to being a defender of freedom in your view?
why?

[NWO Sentryman]

why?

If a sitting president decided to destroy the current system of government (constitutional republic) and sought to make it into a Marxist state, then that is effectively treason. He swore to uphold the Chilean constitution. What he did afterwards makes bush's abuses pale in comparison.

If in the Roman Republic, the Consul sought to abolish the Senate, the Republic and the separation of powers, then he would have been removed in short order and probably strangled in some prison, afterward being subject to damnatio memoriae.

[DC]

If a sitting president decided to destroy the current system of government (constitutional republic) and sought to make it into a Marxist state, then that is effectively treason. He swore to uphold the Chilean constitution. What he did afterwards makes bush's abuses pale in comparison.

If in the Roman Republic, the Consul sought to abolish the Senate, the Republic and the separation of powers, then he would have been removed in short order and probably strangled in some prison, afterward being subject to damnatio memoriae.

depends how you accomplish that. If the people have a say in the creation of the new Constitution and are allowed to vote about its implementation or not, what is the problem? Would you think the same when he would have wanted to overthrow a Socialist government, while he himself being a capitalist?

[NWO Sentryman]

People's will does not justify treason against the Republic.

Caesar was popular and had the people's will, yet there are indications that he may have become a dictator (indeed, he called himself "dictator for life"). The Senate were naturally alarmed at this, given that it seemingly heralded a return to monarchy, which the Republic replaced with the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus.

And it depends if the Capitalist swore to uphold the socialist constitution.

[ddt]

ome more evidence, from Nikolai Leonev: http://www.cepchile.cl/dms/lang_2/doc_1140.html
He only speaks of contacts the KGB has. Nothing about those contacts being communists.


And the Sandinistas were communists. Big time. Why else did they hire Eastern Bloc support and dedicate themselves to marxist leninism?
They should have asked America to support them against America's ally Somoza?


And i spot a fallacy wrt claiming i cited captain america, which i never did.
You employed Captain America, or another comit figure, in earlier posts in this thread.


And was therefore treason, and reason enough to have him overthrown.
You could at most argue that there was reason to overthrow him and return to constitutional conditions. I don't think the Chilean constitution stipulated that an offending president had to be overthrown by a junta that then rounded up its political opponents in the Santiago football stadium and from there, made them disappear.


Hitler was elected to Germany in 1933 and in 34 (when he became fuhrer). The US supported his overthrow when they aligned with a dictator (Stalin). Does that nullify any claim to being a defender of freedom in your view?
You apparently haven't read my reply in my previous post which was, IMO, clear enough. So, to put it blunt:

Hitler invaded Poland (and a host of other countries)
That was the reason to overthrow Hitler.

Castro didn't, Allende didn't, Arbenz didn't and the Sandinistas didn't.

[NWO Sentryman]

ddt,
If your aligning with the KGB there is a good chance that you are of communist persuasion yourself. The Sandinistas, Haile Mengitsu, Indira Gandhi etc were all marxist or marxist sympathetic. Heck, the Mitrokhin Archive shows that the Sandinistas sent guerillas to be trained in Moscow.

The Sandinistas could at the very least have promised to be neutral, but they had sided with the Soviets. They were Moscow's lackeys in Latin America.

I mentioned Captain Planet, something from a REALLY awful 90s tv show (with a partiularly bad one set in Belfast of all places). NOT Captain America. And i never cited Captain Planet or Captain America. I mentioned Captain Planet when i was talking about Political Worldviews (i.e., your view on politics is like something out of Captain Planet).

the thing is WRT Allende that IIRC there was no proper impeachment procedure, and this allowed Pinochet to commit his numerous horrific abuses, which i condemn fully.

Allende wasnt overthrown for invasion (more for constitutional abuses and the fear of a civil war), the Sandinistas lost an election in 1990 (although they did help stir up trouble in Central America) and Arbenz was overthrown due to full blown paranoia.

But my main point still stands. Hitler was elected. would that nullify US claims to protect democracy, especially as the US had aligned themselves with a dictator (Stalin)?

[ddt]

If your aligning with the KGB there is a good chance that you are of communist persuasion yourself. The Sandinistas, Haile Mengitsu, Indira Gandhi etc were all marxist or marxist sympathetic. Heck, the Mitrokhin Archive shows that the Sandinistas sent guerillas to be trained in Moscow.
Someone gotta train them. Washington isn't. So why not ask Moscow?


The Sandinistas could at the very least have promised to be neutral, but they had sided with the Soviets. They were Moscow's lackeys in Latin America.
Evidence? Hint: they're still (again) in power.


I mentioned Captain Planet, something from a REALLY awful 90s tv show (with a partiularly bad one set in Belfast of all places). NOT Captain America. And i never cited Captain Planet or Captain America. I mentioned Captain Planet when i was talking about Political Worldviews (i.e., your view on politics is like something out of Captain Planet).
Sorry for mentioning the wrong "Captain". Moral of the story: don't use analogies the other side doesn't know.


the thing is WRT Allende that IIRC there was no proper impeachment procedure, and this allowed Pinochet to commit his numerous horrific abuses, which i condemn fully.


Allende wasnt overthrown for invasion (more for constitutional abuses and the fear of a civil war),
Who mentioned invasion?

the Sandinistas lost an election in 1990 (although they did help stir up trouble in Central America)
Contras, cough, cough. I don't know what you've been reading...

and Arbenz was overthrown due to full blown paranoia.
I thought we'd settled that one before. And not on paranoia.


But my main point still stands. Hitler was elected. would that nullify US claims to protect democracy, especially as the US had aligned themselves with a dictator (Stalin)?
You really can't read, can you? Hitler invaded Poland. He wanted to conquer the whole world. Democratically elected or not becomes quite moot then. And he declared war on the US directly after Pearl Harbor.

[NWO Sentryman]

ddt,

The US was not obliged to train the sandinistas.

I thought we'd settled that one before. And not on paranoia.

Actually, it was paranoia, brought about by the Cold War rather than "omg evol corporations" out of some Giant Smurfs film.

And the Sandinistas were pretty brutal themselves. Read about the persecution of the Miskito (Ortega himself admits to it) as well as other abuses and stirring up trouble in El Salvador (support for FMLN). The contras were just as bad ill give you that.

Who mentioned invasion?

em, you did in your sentence "Hitler invaded poland"

Evidence? Hint: they're still (again) in power.

The Mitrohin Archive, Latin America section (unfortunately i cant find an online version)

[ddt]

The US was not obliged to train the sandinistas.
Did I say so? They wanted to be trained, so they sought out a party who wanted to train them for the best price. That almost seems like a free-market approach, doesn't it? :rolleyes:


em, you did in your sentence "Hitler invaded poland"
Yes, because of your suggestion that the US shouldn't have fought and overthrown Hitler. Hitler violated the sovereignty of numerous countries. In international law and order, that is a far more important question than the type of regime. (*) In fact, what regime a country has is in principle purely an internal affair of that country. However, this discussion is specifically about the type of friends the US enjoyed or supported in the international arena.


(*) And let's not put up illusions that Hitler democratically came to power. His SA thugs already terrorized the streets, and the Enabling Act which gave him absolute powers over the Reichstag was passed under the watchful eye of said SA.

[NWO Sentryman]

ddt,

the Sandinistas and the KGB had some ideological overlap, so it made sense.

I was going by your logic that the US shouldnt have supported dictators. My example was supporting a brutal dictator (Stalin) to overthrow an equally brutal (albeit technically elected) hitler.

And i guess it would have been wrong by that logic to send B2s to stop the Rwanda genocide because it was "purely an internal affair"

[MG1962]

(*) And let's not put up illusions that Hitler democratically came to power. His SA thugs already terrorized the streets, and the Enabling Act which gave him absolute powers over the Reichstag was passed under the watchful eye of said SA.

Well in a weird sense Hitler did come to power democratically. The trigger for the enabling act was the floor in the constitution that did not specify what exact emergency powers he should of had.

The real source of Hitlers power, in a strange twist of fate was the split in the communist party. If Stalin had not insisted on external control of the party, they pretty much would have won the 33' election. Probably would have won the 31' thus destroying Hitler as well

[Pardalis]

Castro did not introduce racism to Cuba. Do you have any particular problem with how he's handled it?

You mean incarcerate them and not allow them in any governmental or administrative office?

(I would not be surprised if, upon digging into the history, I found out that America had done much to promote racism in Cuba. It certainly did so in Hispaniola.)Let me know when you find it.

[Pardalis]

Hitler invaded Poland (and a host of other countries)
That was the reason to overthrow Hitler.

Castro didn't, Allende didn't, Arbenz didn't and the Sandinistas didn't.

They may not have invaded Poland, but all of them arrested and executed dissenters en masse, stifled free speech and committed atrocities on their own people.

[ddt]

Reread my previous post, Pardalis.