Che Guevara

[GodCubed]

What about Libya GC ? Also tragedy ? And what about George Washington ? Did you know that he owned slaves ( I think this is grammatically correct) ? World is ****** up, Che had dream, he did some things ( bad things, I'll agree), but his goal was to help his people. What he didn't know that he will inspire people all over the world. For me, he is inspiration. Hopefully, we'll see Armageddon soon.

Libya? NATO went in with the express purpose of helping rebels gain rightful control of their country and overthrow a dictator. They used precision-guided missiles and reduced the realistic risk to low levels. If you want me to criticise NATO about their involvement in the Middle East, get me started on their lack of involvement in Saudi Arabia, not their actions in Libya.

Washington was a pretty bad guy, yep.

Guevara had admirable principles, but he was no humanist. He was a killer.

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------

I'd rather see no more people die. I guess it won't happen, but I'd like to see a change that isn't brought upon us by violence, for once in our lives. I would fight if I have to, make no mistake, but I live in a country that has had enough of bloodshed and opression, and I like to think we've learned from our past mistakes.

Wish it were that simple. The Utopian dream of a world without war is beautiful, but as a species humans are good at two things: mating and killing one another. More's the pity.

 

[Athe~]

In which case, South American media was a lot fairer and better updated than ours. Understandable, I suppose, given the proximity.

His executions were often carried out without trial. Without his ideology and his work for good in Cuba, Guevara would've been little more than another serial killer.

Of course they were collateral damage. The primary aim wasn't to kill lots and lots of Japanese, it was to get Japan to surrender, admittedly through the process of killing lots of Japanese. Moreover, it's almost certain those bombs saved many more lives than they killed. Japan wouldn't ever have given up unless they were exposed to the sheer power of the atomic bomb.

Guevara's aim wasn't killing lots of Cubans and Bolivians, but to topple an oppressive regime and bring equality to the people he perceived as oppressed. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima were collateral damage then so are Che's executions. IMO neither are collateral, but both are examples of civilian casualties that were seen as necessary for the conflict to end at some point. I don't condone either, but I certainly condemn the A Bombs a lot more than I could condemn Che's executions, mostly because of the irreparable damage they caused - my particular views on Hiroshima and Nagasaki I leave for another thread, as a book could probably be written on the subject.

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:19 PM ----------

Wish it were that simple. The Utopian dream of a world without war is beautiful, but as a species humans are good at two things: mating and killing one another. More's the pity.

I know, but we can dream. What is a man who has no dreams?

 

[GodCubed]

Guevara's aim wasn't killing lots of Cubans and Bolivians, but to topple an oppressive regime and bring equality to the people he perceived as oppressed. If Nagasaki and Hiroshima were collateral damage then so are Che's executions. IMO neither are collateral, but both are examples of civilian casualties that were seen as necessary for the conflict to end at some point. I don't condone either, but I certainly condemn the A Bombs a lot more than I could condemn Che's executions, mostly because of the irreparable damage they caused - my particular views on Hiroshima and Nagasaki I leave for another thread, as a book could probably be written on the subject.

The atomic bombs were used specifically to shorten a war that might've gone on for years and saved thousands of lives. Che Guevara just wanted to spread his ideology, and killed those who disagreed with him. The two situations are totally different.

You're saying Guevara's hurt isn't irreparable? I've been to Cuba, I've talked to Cubans whose parents were threatened and in some cases killed by him. Many of them think of him as a tyrant. Obviously, this is just anecdotal evidence and thus unreliable and a small sample size, but Guevara spent much of his time as close friends with Fidel Castro: that should tell us something, at least.

It's a weak argument, I admit, but that's because so much of this is based on opinion. As you said, you think the atomic bombs were worse than Guevara's murders, and that's fair enough. I think otherwise, but each to their own.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

I know, but we can dream. What is a man who has no dreams?

A realist.

 

[Vanjagl]

I'd rather see no more people die. I guess it won't happen, but I'd like to see a change that isn't brought upon us by violence, for once in our lives. I would fight if I have to, make no mistake, but I live in a country that has had enough of bloodshed and opression, and I like to think we've learned from our past mistakes.

You are from Argentina right ? Well, I can understand your point. My country has wars aprox. every 100 years, mostly it was war against Ottomans, Nazis, Hungary etc. It's a hard situation, and I would love to see peaceful solution. But we are not mature enough ( lets say America, Russia, Chine etc. aren't mature enough). It's just matter of time pal.

Libya? NATO went in with the express purpose of helping rebels gain rightful control of their country and overthrow a dictator. They used precision-guided missiles and reduced the realistic risk to low levels. If you want me to criticise NATO about their involvement in the Middle East, get me started on their lack of involvement in Saudi Arabia, not their actions in Libya.

Washington was a pretty bad guy, yep.

Guevara had admirable principles, but he was no humanist. He was a killer.

---------- Post added at 07:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 PM ----------



Wish it were that simple. The Utopian dream of a world without war is beautiful, but as a species humans are good at two things: mating and killing one another. More's the pity.

NATO killed civilians in Libya. End. Couldn't care less about their goals and I don't want to argue about them. And do you really think NATO is going to attack someone like Iraq ? They have strong army, strong air force, it would be mission impossible for NATO. NATO only attacks ( defends, whatever ) weaker countries. Did they ever attack someone stronger ?

We are animals and that's our instinct. Kill or be killed. I do not agree with this, but I'm just a fool.

 

[DMF]

Wait a second.. you mean he wasn't just a made up face put on jackets that then got really popular?

 

[LgsLord32]

Just saw this thread and thought, someones going through the Che Guevara stage...

 

[GodCubed]

NATO killed civilians in Libya. End. Couldn't care less about their goals and I don't want to argue about them. And do you really think NATO is going to attack someone like Iraq ? They have strong army, strong air force, it would be mission impossible for NATO. NATO only attacks ( defends, whatever ) weaker countries. Did they ever attack someone stronger ?

...what? So because NATO may have (as it was unconfirmed) accidentally killed some innocent people in order to save the lives of many, many others and free a country, you automatically hate them? Your stance on killing is admirable, but so hard-line that no peacekeeping or liberation operations would ever take place if we followed those guidelines.

America and Britain, two of NATO's major players, attacked Iraq. If it had been NATO as a whole the result would've been no different: they still would've won.

NATO was involved as a major player in the Cold War, in which the USSR was just as big. It just so happens that it's the strongest military alliance in the world: there's basically nobody who needs to be attacked who is big enough to pose a threat.

 

[Athe~]

The atomic bombs were used specifically to shorten a war that might've gone on for years and saved thousands of lives. Che Guevara just wanted to spread his ideology, and killed those who disagreed with him. The two situations are totally different.

You're saying Guevara's hurt isn't irreparable? I've been to Cuba, I've talked to Cubans whose parents were threatened and in some cases killed by him. Many of them think of him as a tyrant. Obviously, this is just anecdotal evidence and thus unreliable and a small sample size, but Guevara spent much of his time as close friends with Fidel Castro: that should tell us something, at least.

It's a weak argument, I admit, but that's because so much of this is based on opinion. As you said, you think the atomic bombs were worse than Guevara's murders, and that's fair enough. I think otherwise, but each to their own.

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

A realist.

I've spoken to cubans as well and many still consider the revolution as the best thing that happened to them since the discovery of fire. And in all honesty I also respect Castro and his ideals - although I may not be in full agreement with him - so I'm not sure we're going to get the same idea of the Che-Castro relationship

Anyways, we both know we're not going to talk each other out of our views so it's a pointless argument, I guess we can agree to disagree here.

PS. Realism must not be taken as conformity. I'm a realist, but I allow myself to dream. There's no need to tolerate some of the **** that goes on around the world.

 

[GodCubed]

I've spoken to cubans as well and many still consider the revolution as the best thing that happened to them since the discovery of fire. And in all honesty I also respect Castro and his ideals - although I may not be in full agreement with him - so I'm not sure we're going to get the same idea of the Che-Castro relationship

Fair. I feel a little confused, and it's no doubt a mixture of having pulled an all-nighter and the fact that I lean towards socialism myself. I respect Guevara and Castro for their ideals, but not the methods they used to try and achieve them.

Anyways, we both know we're not going to talk each other out of our views so it's a pointless argument, I guess we can agree to disagree here.

Agreed!

PS. Realism must not be taken as conformity. I'm a realist, but I allow myself to dream. There's no need to tolerate some of the **** that goes on around the world.

Certainly, but we must work within reason. Work towards a war-free world, but accept that it's extremely unlikely.

 

[Mads2506]

NATO killed civilians in Libya. End. Couldn't care less about their goals and I don't want to argue about them. And do you really think NATO is going to attack someone like Iraq ? They have strong army, strong air force, it would be mission impossible for NATO. NATO only attacks ( defends, whatever ) weaker countries. Did they ever attack someone stronger ?

We are animals and that's our instinct. Kill or be killed. I do not agree with this, but I'm just a fool.

NATO killed civilians, yes, but that's just what happens, even police officers kill civilians. There's always a risk. They have to take the chance to kill a few civilians to save many, it's not really a principle I believe in, but it's a hard decision to make and that's what they chose to do. They (the Americans) would attack Saudi Arabia if they thought it was a "threat to the safety of the US". The reasons for initially attacking Sadam Hussein's forces were in my opinion justified, but the occupation afterwards wasn't justified and then they decided to fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban because of the terroist attacks because that's what the US do. Screw respect for the citizens of those countries, lets fight a losing battle because they killed 3000 of our people.

 

[Vanjagl]

...what? So because NATO may have (as it was unconfirmed) accidentally killed some innocent people in order to save the lives of many, many others and free a country, you automatically hate them? Your stance on killing is admirable, but so hard-line that no peacekeeping or liberation operations would ever take place if we followed those guidelines.

America and Britain, two of NATO's major players, attacked Iraq. If it had been NATO as a whole the result would've been no different: they still would've won.

NATO was involved as a major player in the Cold War, in which the USSR was just as big. It just so happens that it's the strongest military alliance in the world: there's basically nobody who needs to be attacked who is big enough to pose a threat.

And yet, NATO attacked Lybia, attacked Serbia. NATO was more than 100x stronger than Serbia back then. Why didn't NATO attack Iraq ? I hate what NATO represents: Terror. For me, and most people who suffered their attacks, they are criminals.

 

[GodCubed]

And yet, NATO attacked Lybia, attacked Serbia. NATO was more than 100x stronger than Serbia back then. Why didn't NATO attack Iraq ? I hate what NATO represents: Terror. For me, and most people who suffered their attacks, they are criminals.

Because the invasion of Iraq wasn't sanctioned by the UN like Serbia and Libya were. It'd be political suicide.

NATO represents different things to all of us. To me they represent a relic of a bygone era, a necessary evil that has many flaws but is built, somewhere in its foundations, upon good if somewhat misguided morals. It's very American, and as Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

 

[Vanjagl]

Because the invasion of Iraq wasn't sanctioned by the UN like Serbia and Libya were. It'd be political suicide.

NATO represents different things to all of us. To me they represent a relic of a bygone era, a necessary evil that has many flaws but is built, somewhere in its foundations, upon good if somewhat misguided morals. It's very American, and as Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

And do you know why ? There is no need for NATO since cold war ended. Yet still, there it is, "helping" us. And I agree about your last part.

 

[Joel`]

Has become an iconic symbol to those who don't have a clue about him, but just like shouting about socialism, rebellion and uprising because they're the current buzzwords of teenage angst and it makes them seem cool with a political objective.

Apart from that, what the cube said.

 

[Vanjagl]

Has become an iconic symbol to those who don't have a clue about him, but just like shouting about socialism, rebellion and uprising because they're the current buzzwords of teenage angst and it makes them seem cool with a political objective.

Apart from that, what the cube said.

Socialism is different than communism. Yugoslavia was sort of socialistic ( I hope this is correct term) country, and it functioned just fine, till Kennedy ****** it. ( Please watch movie "the weight of chains" The Weight of Chains (2010) - IMDb and you'll see why Yugoslavia failed).

 

[Ride The Walrus]

I like how people wear him on their shirt, thinking of him as some sort of cult rebel, when infact by putting him on their t-shirt, that's one of the things he was opposed to.

 

[Joel`]

Socialism is different than communism. Yugoslavia was sort of socialistic ( I hope this is correct term) country, and it functioned just fine, till Kennedy ****** it. ( Please watch movie "the weight of chains" The Weight of Chains (2010) - IMDb and you'll see why Yugoslavia failed).

In the same way that there's a difference between capitalism funding a socialist state (i.e all western democracies) and between extreme right wing capitalism with zero state intervention.

Socialism properly implemented in an economy as the method of producing and distributing goods is economically unworkable. I don't oppose the ideology of it, I oppose the impractical impossibilities of ever successfully implementing it.

 

[Vanjagl]

I find it hard to understand ( socialism) too, cuz I'm economist. But it worked for us, I really don't see why some country ( comm. and soc. countries) can't use our economy system.

 

[Mike.]

Executed 44 years ago yesterday.

Just wondering what people thing about him?
Was he just a nobody whos image has been hijacked to make him into a clut hero?
Was he evil because he helped the Castro brothers control Cuba?
Was he a hero that saved people from poverty?
Was he a delusional **** that thought he was doing the right thing but ultimately wasnt?
Was he a man that just liked fighting?

Due to the majority of the forum being right wing im expecting the majority to be critical of him but it should be a decent discussion.

Im pretty bored.

the majority of the forum is left wing...

 

[Joel`]

I find it hard to understand ( socialism) too, cuz I'm economist. But it worked for us, I really don't see why some country ( comm. and soc. countries) can't use our economy system.

It's not difficult to understand. People are inherently greedy, and so will always drift back towards the capitalist system unless operated under an authoritarian government. Also the principle that it's unfair to force people to be equal, when humans are not all equal, that it denies people the right to negotiate a fair price and the right to entrepreneurship and that it is impossible for the a person in charge of distributing the resources to know every single person's needs and wants in the system. The market works so well because it naturally collects information on people's needs and wants and rations goods under the function of price. The principle rule of economics is scarcity, scarce resources need to be rationed fairly, and the most efficient and effective way of achieving that is via price.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------

the majority of the forum is left wing...

Evidently he views me and Chaz as the majority of this forum.