[Cobnat]

Agreed; he tagged up with Castro to be his lackey. Basically, he was Castro's vizier (spelling?), if you will.

A persons social standing should not determine whether that persons ideas should be taken seriously or not.

As for me, I'm not a big fan of people who trounce on others' liberties, so Guevara isn't a guy I'd exactly have tea and biscuits with...

You should be wary of anyone who crusades their ideas violently.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 31 August 2007 - 03:37 PM

[Bond]

A persons social standing should not determine whether that persons ideas should be taken seriously or not.

I mean to say, he was like a radical crony; always the bloodthirsty one, always taking the leader's ideas too seriously. When Castro was trying to run the affairs of state, Guevara was running around tarnishing Cuba's reputation with his violent anarchy.

[J m HofMarN]

Bond- My guess is that your father was an imperialist land owner in Cuba, and Guevara did justice to him. Cuz that's the only reason I can see for your irrational attacks against everything he did, ever. I'm still waiting for you to explain why you don't believe Dr. Guevara was a real doctor. Feel free to present evidence at any time.

My point is though that people like Guevara and Mao got most of their ideas from Ancient Strategists like Sun-Tzu. Guevara did not bring anything new to the world of war and politics.

I disagree. And so do the sales of Dr. Guevara's books.

If you're going to go after Che Guevara for taking Sun Tzu's ideas you may as well hit up Napoleon and Hitler while you're at it. You can't just dismiss someone because their winning strategies MIGHT be based off someone who lived thousands of years ago. Also, you can know Sun Tzu or other strategy tomes by heart and still be a shitty commander. Guevara and His Excellency both did more than just strategize. They fought in their own plans, on the front lines with their men and gained their respect, and many other things that proved that they were effective leaders. Case in point:

Guevara was training with Castro's band. At the time he was on as a DOCTOR (note for Bond) and really had no obligation to train, especially with his crippling asthma. Regardless he went on every march and climb. One of the other men in the march fell down and Guevara kept getting him up. Finally the guy couldnt walk anymore and Che had to take him back. They were going to kick him out of the rebel army for laziness until he finally confessed that the reason he kept having trouble with the marches was he had a broken ankle. He hadn't told them because he wanted to be able to fight for the rebels that badly, and he'd kept marching despite his injury because he saw Che doing the same. That man ended up travelling with the eighty freedom fighters on the Granma. They don't teach that sort of thing in Sun Tzu. You're either a leader or you're not.

Agreed; he tagged up with Castro to be his lackey. Basically, he was Castro's vizier (spelling?), if you will.

Yes, and Thomas Jefferson was Washington's lackey, therefore fuck every contribution he's ever made. Huzzah for logic!

Thing is, Che used much worse tactics, he was the over-seer of Castro's execution squad.

First of all: Those people executed in the prison in Havana were variously guilty of treachery, exploitation, murder, torture and slavery. They were given trials (difference #1 from the US and Batista regime) and they were not permitted to be tortured (difference #2 from the US and Batista regime) they were not held indefinately without charge (difference #3 from the US and Batista regime) and the vast majority of them were guilty and had reliable witnesses against them(difference #4 from the US and Batista regime). Also, Che didn't just kill everyone. Some Batista military officers were innocent of any abuses, and had actually protected captured rebels from being tortured And some former land lords had actually treated their tenant farmers decently and were therefore left alone.

Taken as a whole the Cuban justice system was fairer than the so-called justice system at Guantanamo and more expeditious despite the fact that it dealt with scum far more vile than the farmers and taxi drivers who are snatched from Iraq and Afghanistan daily.

I think torture and the likes of it are common in war, a natural extention of it. Only douche liberal hippies actually cry about this shit.

I think you're wrong. His Excellency has never had anyone tortured or allowed such to occur. I'm far from a hippie on the subject. If I'd been watching the firing squads do justice to former Batista officers or land lords working for the US, I'd cheer. But that's justice. Torture has nothing to do with justice or with revolutionary struggle. Torture and assassination are tools of the imperialists and their cronies. And yes, so-called communist regimes have done the same. But China and Russia were just as imperialist as the US.

As for me, I'm not a big fan of people who trounce on others' liberties, so Guevara isn't a guy I'd exactly have tea and biscuits with...

You know the problem with people like you is you go about your lives believing Cuba was populated by rich, happy people with a car in every garage and happy pink bunnies running around until the big bad commies came in and ruined everything so that now everyone is poor and people eat their young to survive.

Seriously, read a damned book. Cuba in terms of human rights, democracy, health care, availability of food, literacy, and, well, pretty much everything is now hundreds of times better than when Cuba was under Washington's thumb. For instance:

When His Excellency first tried to overthrow Batista he had about 100 men to assault the Moncada barracks. Ten of them died in the failed assault. About eighty were taken prisoner. About forty survived. Most of the survivors including a woman, had cigarette burns, internal bleeding, or in one case missing testicles(and I'm not talking about the woman here)

But yeah, Che and His Excellency were awful people for getting rid of Batista, and clearly they have no regard for human rights. We must shake our fingers at them.

When Castro was trying to run the affairs of state, Guevara was running around tarnishing Cuba's reputation with his violent anarchy.

Oh yeah it was Che Guevara who went after Cuba's reputation. I mean, without him Castro and Nixon would have been golfing buddies. What reputation did he tarnish? The US put an illegal blockade on Cuba and tried to steal all of its assets because His Excellency wouldn't accept a bribe from the CIA to let them dictate Cuba's future.

Che went around trying to bring hope and freedom to the rest of the world, and that improved Cuba's reputation among the people. It probably doesn't hurt that Cuba has occupied almost every South American country. Not with assassins and torturers like the US does, but with doctors.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 31 August 2007 - 10:35 PM

[Bond]

My goodness, you make every possible excuse for Guevara, don't you?

You know, you probably would have tried justifying Cameron Diaz's Maoist handbag to the Peruvians if you'd been there:

"Oh, Mao and Communism aren't evil; they bring hope to people everywhere!"
"They ruined our country! Cut his f*cking head off!"

[J m HofMarN]

Exactly what did he do that requires excusing?
Also, if you hadn't noticed, we're supposed to be debating here. Jordan didn't come in and say "Hi Che Guevara wasn't a real doctor and he liked sex in the homobutt ok bye" No. He presented facts and opinions, to which I made a rebuttal that was factually based along with some of my own opinions. That's not making excuses. That's debating. If I'd said "Well, Che was really sleepy when those people were shot" that's an excuse.

And I continue to wait for your evidence that he was not a doctor of medicine.

Also,

From: J M
To: Bond
Subject: RE: Cameron Diaz Maoist Peru nonsense:

Body: Wot?

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 01 September 2007 - 01:30 AM

[Bond]

From: J M
To: Bond
Subject: RE: Cameron Diaz Maoist Peru nonsense:

Body: Wot?

Cameron Diaz brought a handbag with a red star and a quote from Mao on it when she went on a publicity tour to Peru. Because Peru had gone through a horrible Mao-based bloodshed in the '80s, naturally, they were appalled; it'd be like bringing a swastika to Israel.

[J m HofMarN]

That's a charming story. And it completely distracted me from your weak argument... Oh wait, no it didn't.

I continue to await your reason for doubting Che Guevara's medical knowledge.

I continue to await your explanation of how his overthrow of the Batista regime needs to be excused.

I know reason factors little in your hatred of Dr. Guevara, but it tends to be a mildly important part of debates.

[Slade]

I'd again like to point out that there was nothing communistic or socialistic about the Maoist/Stalinist regimes. They were state capitalist.

Jordan: Your apathy and excuses for the degrading acts human beings inflict upon one another is appalling. If we all held everyone to higher standards there wouldn't be that sort of stuff, assuming people also did something about it.

As far as the debate is concerned, the best thing to do is to withdraw immediately, apologize to the entire world for perpetuating terrorism and throwing the Middle East into even worse turmoil than it was already, as well as setting such a disgusting example to the world as the formost superpower in existence. Yes, they're all going to be killing one another over there for a long time, but that's sadly the best we can hope for. You simply can't control a country when you enter it as as a conquerer. Hell, the American South is still bitter about the Civil War; there are people who identify themselves as Southerners before Americans.

Here's what an important government official had to say about Iraq in 1994. "It's a quagmire."

[Bond]

Here's what an important government official had to say about Iraq in 1994. "It's a quagmire."

Seems Dick Cheney has been practicing doublespeak throughout most of his career...

[J m HofMarN]

This is a revalation?

And on the topic at hand, are you going to answer my queries or are you just remaining quiet while trying desperately to make up a reason not to concede the debate.

[Jordan]

CIA and Terrorist organizations of the world! Beware, Slade has publicly called you to his standard. Don't disappoint him now.

Holding people to higher standards? You just don't get it do you. Your standards and your opinions don't mean fuck all to some guy who doesn't speak your language, doesn't adhere to your God, and doesn't share the same stretch of land with you. Go back and read your liberal arts text books and smoke your pot. But you better not have a poster of Che in your room.

But any how, Che took part in these acts and this is something that no fan boy of his will ever admit. They will try justify it but at the same time condemn any one else for doing it. The mere thought of Che being an executioner drives them up the wall and will forever stick in their craw.

I understand why these acts exists. And guys like Che and his freedom fighting farmers, the CIA, and KGB, and so on will probably end up cutting off fingers and shooting people in the back of the head. It's a natural extension of their trade. Every country that has the power to employee these acts will probably use them. Even if they really don't want to, some one will think "gee, if we torture this one man, we may get some valuable tips that could save 100 of our guys". That logic is definately the drive behind torture in the military.

Condemn it all you want, thats fine. But don't expect to be victorious. I don't condemn Che for those acts. I see it as a normal thing in his line of work. And maybe JM is right, perhaps the people he did snuff out did deserve it. It's not so cut and dry. There are tons of factors weighted in on torture and execution. Obviously you've never been gung-ho about a cause. I'm sure if you saw your community brought to it's knees in violence and poverty, and you decided to fight back, you'd probably have a slightly different view on "high standards".

This post has been edited by Jordan: 02 September 2007 - 06:41 AM

[Bond]

Jordan, I wholeheartedly agree; perhaps Guevara was justified in killing people, but it's still the act of violently snuffing out one's life.

[J m HofMarN]

Jordan- I just don't equate torture with execution. These are two very different things. I believe that in the majority of the cases where people were executed post-revolution it was warranted, but torture never was, and Guevara never did such. So he's definately not on the same low ethical level as people in the current US regime.

And I'm happy to admit that people were executed under his command. However it wasn't just capitalist prisoners. Desserters and traitors in the rebel army were executed by him personally. Which is just the same penalty that US civil and military law allows, so I'm not about to listen to Bond bitching about how he was so mean.

Anyhow I'm glad we can see eye to eye on at least one issue. I think people interested in peaceful change are, for the moment, right. Because Che Guevara taught that we should stick to peaceful democratic methods as long as there is some semblance of democracy that the tyrants can wave at people to discourage their anger. So those who are involved in protests and other struggle are free to use Dr. Guevara's image. But I would hope that once the last vestige of democracy is whiped away, everyone who claims to love Che Guevara will love their gun equally well.

Also, Bond, still waiting on your rebuttals. Getting rather tiring. Just because you don't bother to concede a point doesn't mean you've somehow won.

[Cobnat]

If you're going to go after Che Guevara for taking Sun Tzu's ideas you may as well hit up Napoleon and Hitler while you're at it. You can't just dismiss someone because their winning strategies MIGHT be based off someone who lived thousands of years ago. Also, you can know Sun Tzu or other strategy tomes by heart and still be a shitty commander. Guevara and His Excellency both did more than just strategize. They fought in their own plans, on the front lines with their men and gained their respect, and many other things that proved that they were effective leaders. Case in point:

Hitler used the same strategies in WW2 as the German high command did in WW1 with one exception: heavy use of tanks and bombers. Napoleon also did not bring anything new to the world of war; his successes came with well time use of cavalry and artillery. One thing Napoleon did do was bring national conscription into full swing but even that was in use thousands of years before his time. I never said that knowing Sun-Tzu made you a good commander; I said that Guevara and Mao got most of their ideas from him; mainly because he is basically the father of conventional and non-conventional warfare but also because the art of war (pun intended) hasn’t really changed since his time; so the strategies and tactics of those who lived hundreds if not thousands of years ago are still useful today.

[Bond]

Even against terrorists, Cobnat? I must admit, you'd be hard-pressed to try to apply any of Sun-Tzu's rules to them...