I always wondered who this fellow was, so I read the text linked from &TOTSE's home.

I don't understand why so many people love this guy or see him as a great man. It seems like his only goal was to spread China-like Communism? But maybe I read a biased article. This is why I am asking you guys.

What was it about this guy that made everyone love him?

He was a charismatic leader of his movement and a large portion of college students support that movement untill they have to start paying bills.

Che fills every void left by unloving parents, a weak sense of identity, and a nagging sense of guilt at having a lot without working for anything. (a lot of white middle class college kids and people in similar boats form the basis of this trend you are referring to) Most kids can follow the trend of liking him while being convinced they are not part of a trend, so they can feel accepted and rebellious at the same time. A small minority do it because they can play condescending to people who used to mercilessly laugh at them and not accept them. Now they put on their Che shirt and think "Youre just a tool of the system man" and it lets them sleep at night without feeling left out. Its quite pitiful actually.

i just think thats its a bit ironic that his face is being used to flog off t-shirts. not very communist is it?

Che merely wanted to spread his variety of Communism, which was more humanitarian and based on the individual then the militant Russian Bolshavism or Chinese Maoism, which robbed people of their identities. He believed that guerilla warfare and individual factions were more important towards revolution then a strong bureaocracy.

He was so popular because he was only a revolutionary, rather then a world leader (controlling a government immediately makes your flaws shine). He hopped from country to country helping revolutionary factions, until he was killed in Bolivia.

I heard he was a homosexual/child molester(not trying to be demeaning or using this as a bad thing[though the molesting is], just a note on his sexual prefrence).

Other than that I just know that he never, ever, ever bathed or washed.

the child molester thing is used against anyone and everyone that someone doesn't like. its not hard to post something on indymedia and let it spread.

>>>>He was so popular because he was only a revolutionary, rather then a world leader (controlling a government immediately makes your flaws shine). He hopped from country to country helping revolutionary factions, until he was killed in Bolivia. <<<<


People dont wear Sam Adams or William Wallace on their shirts. Im going to stand by my original allegation.

fingers, you and mouse are posterchildren for the type of people guys like this seek out,

20 years ago i could see mouse in the manson family, and i could see you having kool-aid with jim jones.

i wouldn't say unloving parents spirit, although that is the way the child sees it, while spewing shit like you don't understand me, you don't even know who i am, and a fear of the future knowing the luxuries you took for granted your whole life you may never have again which allows to rally around utopian ideas and rebellious towards established institutions.

i know the exact feeling, i was one of them, until like smithee said you start paying bills.

that's where the ideals of a society where everybody is on equal footing goes out the window when you realize the poverty that you've been blaming on the rich and the poor who is so deserving of a share of the wealth is taking a share of your wealth as well, which at 22 you're lucky to last two weeks.

Amen to the Iz

Che was the only world famous Communist that doesn't have the slightest amount of oppression on his record. Therefor, rebellious left wing kids can like him without having to like a "big bad dictator."

Little to they know they Che would fit the common definition of ruthless much better then Castro. Che actually opposed many of Castro's democratic reforms, saying that they'd encourage capitalism.

quote:

---

fingers, you and mouse are posterchildren for the type of people guys like this seek out,
20 years ago i could see mouse in the manson family, and i could see you having kool-aid with jim jones.

---

What are you basing this mindless drivel on, Lost? You have no clue who I am at all. You have never met me. You could see me in the Manson family because I disagree with your views about Israel and mentioned the failures of the IMF reforms in the Cuba thread? That's quite an interesting thought process that you possess.

Uncle,

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Che was the only world famous Communist that doesn't have the slightest amount of oppression on his record.

---

I guess those he led to their deaths don't count...Tell that to their families and see if they agree...or tell it to the families of those he killed or had killed. Lot of it depends on what you call oppression. Kids without parents meet that definition for me...how about you? However, why am I asking you another question? You never answered the last one about Cuba being/not being communist, so here's another chance for you to ignore a direct question.

Nox

quote:

---

I guess those he led to their deaths don't count...Tell that to their families and see if they agree...or tell it to the families of those he killed or had killed. Lot of it depends on what you call oppression. Kids without parents meet that definition for me...how about you?

---

Forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about Che. Are you saying he forced people on death marches?

I wear sam adams on my beer.

Okay, I'll directly answer both questions.

1. People Che lead to their deaths in battle doesn't count as oppression. They were perfectly willing to fight for a cause they believed in, and nobly died for it. People die in war, if that's what you're referring to. If you're reffering to civilians that died because of the Cuban revolution, then i'll have to say that their deaths don't count - because they didn't die. With an exception of soldiers willing to fight, the Cuban revolution made life better for all the people. Batista starved thousands of peasants to death, left millions homeless with his economic policies,which was alot as opposed to the 0% homelessness after the revolution. Castro divided farmland among the peasants, and even his biggest dissenters admit that he SIGNIFICANTLY raised the standard of living for the common people, and nobody is foolish enough to claim that he wasn't 100% better then Batista. Therefor, I'll refute your claim by saying the number of enemies Che had killed in battle, and the few political executiosn that took place in the midst of maintaining power pail in comparison to the amount of people Che indirectly saved.

2. Cuba is not a Communist society, nor has there ever been a Communist society. A communist society is a classless utopian world without any sort of a state, where the workers government their factories and rotating leaders oversee the distribution of wealth and labor "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
Cuba is a socialist society striving for communism.

Uncle,

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Che was the only world famous Communist that doesn't have the slightest amount of oppression on his record.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:

1. If you're reffering to civilians that died because of the Cuban revolution, then i'll have to say that their deaths don't count - because they didn't die.

and the few political executiosn that took place in the midst of maintaining power pail in comparison to the amount of people Che indirectly saved.

2. Cuba is not a Communist society, nor has there ever been a Communist society.

---

Those that died didn't die??? O silly them. And the political executions don't count??? O silly me. As for #2, it is just exactly that, number 2 (as in "teacher, can I go number two?").

Nox

Every American president has been responsable for more deaths then Che.

Btw, you really know how to directly ignore my replies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Btw, you really know how to directly ignore my replies.

---

Btw, I learned how to do that from you.

Nox

I know you are but what am I?

i base it on your teen angst anthem attitude, you have an anti-societal view no matter the topic.

that may be part of the reason you chose mouse for your username...

i don't find anything timid about you.

What exactly are my anti-societal views?

your personal opinion which consistantly is in opposition to what is considered popular thought,

your holier than thou attitude when it comes to the perceived blindness of those who don't share your view,

the impression i get is that you honestly believe 300 million people are wrong,

the "status quo" which repels you.

i do not entirely agree with popular opinion, but respecting my country and those that live here,

i must concede to popular opinion, and voice the reasoning behind my position to maybe influence the status quo, as much as i can anyway.

i smoke pot, do i support it being illegal hell no,

am i going to write off my government for it,

hell no.

anything that doesn't follow your "ideals" is tyranny,

perhaps you would feel free imposing your "ideals" upon others,

it would be a perfect world then wouldn't it?

ran just the way you think it should be run.

what would you do with those who oppose you?

quote:

---

anything that doesn't follow your "ideals" is tyranny

---

Lol what the hell? I like when people disagree. When everyone thinks the same thing something is fishy.

quote:

---

the impression i get is that you honestly believe 300 million people are wrong

---

About what? Where are these 300 million people that all think the same thing? Note: What issue are they even agreeing on?

quote:

---

your personal opinion which consistantly is in opposition to what is considered popular thought

---

What the hell is "popular thought"? Is there some kind of poll that you are following that lists out what all the beliefs of the masses on everything? Would you get on my case for not liking the latest #1 single on the pop charts?

The foundation of democracy is freedom of speech and thought, no matter how radical it is. It isn't just reading the latest poll and following that flow. The point of freedom of speech, media and debate isn't just to rehash everything that YOU want to hear that makes YOU comfortable and pay homage to national treasured myths.

Do you really think that I get my views by looking at some poll to see what most Americans think, then purposely think the opposite just out of spite? That shows how little you know about me and my views on a wide range of things.

Don't you think that it could be possible that some people do research on history and issues and actually come to different conclusions to "popular thought" because they have honestly different opinions and belief and have read different things? Is everyone who dissents from the mythical "popular belief" on an issue a worthless angsty teenager that is just trying to spite the parents?

I really hope that most people don't have that kind of point of view. That kind of mindset isn't very healthy for open minded debating or democracy even. Democracy relies on people pointing out flaws and suggesting things that we could do better.. not on following groupthink and supporting things just because some leaders say "because I said so".

your hipocrisy isn't "cute" anymore.

SURPRISE!!!

your not the only one on here i disagree with.

i used the popular thought reference, not because of me,

but because of your interpretation of the "status quo" as you so elegantly put it.

"Do you really think that I get my views by looking at some poll to see what most Americans think, then purposely think the opposite just out of spite?"

no but you do like what are considered by the "status quo" as "radical", again as you so elegantly put it.

"The foundation of democracy is freedom of speech and thought, no matter how radical it is."

how can a freedom be radical?

i'm relating by your own definitions.

"The point of freedom of speech, media and debate isn't just to rehash everything that YOU want to hear that makes YOU comfortable and pay homage to national treasured myths."

another reference to the oppressive tyranny of america that has silenced YOUR voice?

"Is everyone who dissents from the mythical "popular belief" on an issue a worthless angsty teenager that is just trying to spite the parents?"

no, a person who takes a position because of how "radical" it is to the "uninformed status quo".

"because they have honestly different opinions and belief and have read different things?"

like i said in another post,

manson "BELIEVED" he heard "DIFFERENT THINGS" on a beatles album that gave him an "HONESTLY DIFFERENT OPINION".

other people whose opinion differs from mine is usually pretty consistant on case by case circumstance.

your criticism of america spying on nations while not realizing these same nations spy on us...

your criticism of america influencing of other nations through "undemocratic" means for what you admit as being for security, and open support for russia taking over countries for as you put it their security...

your criticism and dismissal of america's media for being one sided, while endorsing
blatant propaganda meant to influence opinion as "legitimate media"...

i loved the one where you basically said the israeli media is full of lies, here's a palestinian website that says so.

your criticism of "status quo" political parties as doing the whim of the lobbyist, while supporting the green party and the lobbyists that fund them, the intentions are the same regardless the size of the pocketbook...

"Democracy relies on people pointing out flaws and suggesting things that we could do better.. "

bullshit.

democracy relies on people of differing opinion coming to an acceptable arrangement for both,

you are suggesting that one side is always wrong and needs to do things better.

that couldn't possibly be your side could it?

because it appears that somebody pointing out the flaws and suggesting alternatives to your view is...

how shall i say,

hell, i'll let you say it...

"following groupthink and supporting things just because some leaders say "because I said so". "

hypocrisy

n 1: an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

quote:

---

your criticism of america spying on nations while not realizing these same nations spy on us...

---

Now, where the fuck did I criticize America for just SPYING on nations?

quote:

---

your criticism of america influencing of other nations through "undemocratic" means for what you admit as being for security, and open support for russia taking over countries for as you put it their security...

---

Where the fuck was the OPEN SUPPORT??? I said I didn't agree with it but the point was that they weren't trying to take over the world like you said! The entire point is that the standard US excuse for propping up dictators and invading nations is "because the soviets want to take over the world with communism". I think that's bullshit.

quote:

---

your criticism and dismissal of america's media for being one sided, while endorsing
blatant propaganda meant to influence opinion as "legitimate media"...

i loved the one where you basically said the israeli media is full of lies, here's a palestinian website that says so.

---

I used Israeli and International sites. You think Israeli human rights groups with documented evidence are "blatant propaganda"?

quote:

---

your criticism of "status quo" political parties as doing the whim of the lobbyist, while supporting the green party and the lobbyists that fund them, the intentions are the same regardless the size of the pocketbook...

---

Show me where the Green Party is bought up by big business lobbying please! Why the fuck would someone lobby the Green Party? They can't be president! They have little to no power! The entire process of lobbying and campaign funding is handing over tons of campaign cash then asking for favors when you come into power. Why would someone lobby the Green Party? They don't get elected here except in local elections!

quote:

---

democracy relies on people of differing opinion coming to an acceptable arrangement for both,

you are suggesting that one side is always wrong and needs to do things better.

that couldn't possibly be your side could it?

---

You think everything is perfect and hunky dory right now? Hell, why do we even have debates and elections?

Example. You smoke pot. Do you think the War on Drugs is fine now the way it is, or should people go out and try to change that? Or should they just shut up and leave things the way they are? Should the civil rights movement have just shut up and behaved? Women's right? "oh well..we can vote now.. no point in making a fuss about all that other stuff.."

I'd love to see how I'm being hypocritical! I have not said anything insincere. Actually, the method you most use to debate is nothing but personal attacks and ridiculous assumptions about my character and personality because you do not like my political views. You don't know my opinions on 95% of the shit out there in the world. You've just had some major issue with me because I disagree with your opinion on the middle east and because I said that IMF reforms have been a failure (that's a fact.. they have failed). You've never been able to coherently debate that even. All you do is make some strange rambling about how I am jealous of rich people or some shit.

I guess I'm not patriotic enough for your liking. I try to judge all countries by the same moral standard. If I come down harder on the US, it's because the US is where I grew up and I know more about US history than say.. France history, the US is the topic of most of the discussions, and the US has had more worldwide actions in recent and present day than any other. I won't wail and moan about one country doing something bad and saying we should invade it, while ignoring what mine does. I think that is hypocritical. Having a "war on terrorism" while ignoring our own dirty deeds is the most hypocritical thing in the world.

As I have been a citizen in this country, I tend to judge what my country does based on my morals. If my morals say that something is wrong, I think it's wrong and try to think up a better course of action if there is one. I have a very hard time just going along with what a country is doing even if I don't morally agree with it just to be patriotic and have national pride. I'm blunt. I don't like what we are doing, and I don't like what we have done in many places. If the US changes how it acts, then I'd be ecstatic and proud. I don't see it changing though.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 05-29-2002).]

forgive me,

not JUST for spying, but in addition to spying,

what are other nations doing in addition to spying?

"You think Israeli human rights groups with documented evidence are "blatant propaganda"?"

did i say israeli haven't done anything wrong?

and i wasn't the only one to mention the one-sided web sites you posted.

"Show me where the Green Party is bought up by big business lobbying please!"

did i say big business?

i said lobbyists, and that the size of the pocketbook doesn't change the context of lobbying.

"Why the fuck would someone lobby the Green Party?"

so greenpeace doesn't make any donations to the green party? earthfirst doesn't?

you think having ralph nader as it's candidate didn't generate funds from places other than environmental?

nader the consumer-advocate spokesman, supported by many businesses simply on the basis of the good pr it generates with consumers?

"They can't be president!"

we are not a dictatorship, the laws are not determined solely by the president.

"The entire process of lobbying and campaign funding is handing over tons of campaign cash then asking for favors when you come into power."

may i ask who lobbied the government representative in california to propose a bill that would fine smokers smoking in their own house with a window open resulting in a complaint from a neighbor whose open window the smoke drifted through?

that's fucking unbelievable, i'm curious did it pass?

who lobbied the florida senate to make it illegal for a state employee to smoke?

"Why would someone lobby the Green Party? They don't get elected here except in local elections!"

as i said policies are lobbied for not just on a presidential level, but on a congressional, state, and local level as well.

tell me why anybody, not just big business, would donate money to campaigns if they weren't supporting certain policies on the platform, or as you term it when other parties do it-"political favors".

and am i wrong,

you didn't say this....
"The Russians were brutal, but their reasons for invading east Europe was basically for "security" more than world domination"

preceded by this...
"What gives us the right to invade every country and demand oil for OUR comfort and convenience?"

tell me the first statement doesn't sound like a shrug of the shoulders big deal, they did it for security,

when those were TAKEN OVER, we influenced policy, changed leaders, but still let members of the society rule that society.

that's all you disagreed with?

or are they the only things you disagreed with you could respond to?

quote:

---

may i ask who lobbied the government representative in california to propose a bill that would fine smokers smoking in their own house with a window open resulting in a complaint from a neighbor whose open window the smoke drifted through?

that's fucking unbelievable, i'm curious did it pass?

who lobbied the florida senate to make it illegal for a state employee to smoke?

---

I do not know. As I'm a non smoker, I don't pay attention to any politics involving smoking. The smokers I know don't seem to pay attention or care either about that, so it's never been brought up.

quote:

---

tell me the first statement doesn't sound like a shrug of the shoulders big deal, they did it for security,

when those were TAKEN OVER, we influenced policy, changed leaders, but still let members of the society rule that society

---

Geez man! I've explained that before! Here it is again..

1) The arguement that most people raise when US actions are criticized in the Cold War are that "The Soviets were trying to take over the world with communism.. look they invaded East Europe".

2) So I say.. "No, I think they invaded East Europe because they had a history of invasion from that area and wanted a safe zone, not world domination".

3) And, that is a vastly different move than hopping over to a totally different continent and crushing their popular revolts or democratic elections just because big business either wasn't happy about who was elected or liked the dictators that were already there and didn't want people to revolt against them. Maintaining "Free Enterprise" in third world countries is not in the interest of security for the American people. Supporting death squads and dictators is not in the interest of security for the third world people.

quote:

---

"Why the fuck would someone lobby the Green Party?"

so greenpeace doesn't make any donations to the green party? earthfirst doesn't?

you think having ralph nader as it's candidate didn't generate funds from places other than environmental?

nader the consumer-advocate spokesman, supported by many businesses simply on the basis of the good pr it generates with consumers?

---

Lostmind, lobbying is coddling up to people who are *already in power* to try and get what you want. For example, certain corporations will dump a bunch of soft money onto a cantidate lobby for little "favors" and tax breaks when they are in power. Simply donating money to people who are acting on a cause that they agree upon isn't lobbying.

The corrupt part is when it's at the point where cantidates totally rely on the big donars for money to get elected then give those donars favors and benefits. That's why the Green Party really wants campaign finance reforms. Me just writing a check to Nader then saying good luck isn't corrupt. People can't go lobby Nader right now. He can't make any laws.



[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 05-29-2002).]

first i showed you the only intrusion into russia was by germany in the last 1500 years.

it happened once so we better stop it,

we got bombed twice in 60 years and you still think we shouldn't do anything.

don't you see how that sounds, i know the point you're trying to make, but you're not making it very good.

secondly, how little you know of lobbying,

are you aware that part of campaign finance reform is the elimination of soft money,

you writing a check to nader is lobbying, it is saying you support the platform he's running on and you contributing in the hopes he succeeds so he can implement his procedures which you agree with.

i looked at the green party site and it said no donations from businesses,

what's the difference if microsoft donates 1 million dollars to the campaign,

or if bill gates donates a million dollars to the campaign.

the campaign is still getting a million dollars from somebody who supports their position.

george bush getting a campaign contribution from texaco, doesn't mean he's going to all of a sudden support the oil industry,

texaco gave him that money because he supported the oil industry prior to running.

now if al gore was vice president, recieved campaign contributions from the chinese(which is illegal anyways) and it is found out that it was in return for military secrets, yes i've got a problem with that.

wait a minute, that did happen, but the missing los alamos tapes were never directly linked to gore's campaign.

i wonder how hard they looked considering he was the vice president.

funny how it was the fascist fox news that broke the chinese donation story about a candidate running with campaign finance reform as part of his platform, and not the clinton news network.

quote:

---

you writing a check to nader is lobbying

---

LOBBY - A group, organization or association seeking to influence the passage or defeat of legislation. Originally the term referred to persons frequenting the lobbies or corridors of legislative chambers in order to speak to lawmakers.

Mouse, What makes it right for the Soviets to invade Eastern Europe for security but when we do the same we are "interfering with that country" help me to understand this. Also, show me evidence that the Soviets weren't trying to take over the world with communism?. Did you read this in a book too?

When the hell did I say it was right? Saying someone's justifications for something doesn't mean I personally believe something was right at all. I do not think that it was right for them to do that, just as I do not believe it was right for our government to do what it did to third world nations and play upon Communism fears to scare the people up enough to support anything it did. US actions in Latin America did nothing to affect the Soviets, and did a lot to keep the people in those countries miserable under our puppet dictators.

I'm very suspicious when it's commonly believed that our enemies of the past and future wanted to "take over the world". That's a scare tactic. You always have to remember that the winner rewrites history. Stalin was a horrible, evil man.. but so were many people that we supported under the guise of "fighting against communism".

Stalin believed in "socialism in one country." He never intended on conquering the world. Lenin called for worlf revolution, but since we believe in the rule of the majority so much, we'd probably accept Communism if the majority of our nation wanted it (although it was really 1 10th of 1%).

Stalin was not evil. Stalin was a paranoid syphiliptic with way too much power on his hands. He was insane, but blaming Stalin for all of the USSR's problems would be juvinile. He did replace the banner of the workers with his own personality cult, recklessly starved millions of farmers, and conduct purges of mass terror in which thousands of loyal party members were brutally tortured until they confessed to rediculous crimes and then executed. I condemn Stalin for these campaigns of terror. I also condemn him for his promoting the KGB to the point that they control every aspect of human life. I condemn him for setting the stage as one of the most ruthless dictators in history, and for turning Lenin's creation backward, into a "dictatorship OVER the proletariat."

Nevertheless, Stalin's positive contributions to society come closer to outweighing the negative then any other "evil dictator's" pros. He was most responsable for stopping Hitler, which society owes him a great deal for. While Stalin's succesor's did their best to undo his damage, imagine if Hitler took over the world! Imagine the Nazis unleashed their brutal campaign of terror and extermination on the entire world. They would have made Stalin look like Jane Fonda. Stalin was a failed production buy a new, developing industry, while Hitler was a mastermind behind an industry of his own. Therefor, Stalin was merely a phaze - a phaze that defeated Hitler.

On top of this, Stalin created the first 3 year plan, which put the Soviet economy back on it's feet. The idea of industry shapiong agricultural and having goals for productive brought the USSR through it's toughest times, and without the initial idea behind 3 and 5 year plans which Stalin devised, alot more people would have starved then in the famine's he induced.

While Stalin was a homocidal maniac, he did help society significantly in WW2, and was responsable for quite a few ideas which helped shape socialism the way it is now.

.....Tell me why Hitler killing Russians is worse than Stalin doing it again.

No stalin screwed Russia in terms of fighting Hitler, he crippled the red army by purging a great deal of its leadership he killed a great many of the nations scientists as well. Besides, stalin killed more people than hitler. I think the more disturbing thought would be if stalin had conqored the world.

Stalin wasn't intending to conquer the world. Hitler was. Hitler would have killed alot more people... since the desire to exterminate a race is more wholesome then syphilis-induced paranoia. Stalin's course was set - he'd die, and the USSR's leaders (who for the most part hated him) would attempt to undo his damage, which they did.

Hitler would probably annihilate 1/3 of the world's population, since his political ideology was centered around him, and all Nazis believed the same thing.

We wouldn've won World War 2 if not for Stalin. If you deny that, you're just kidding yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
We wouldn've won World War 2 if not for Stalin. If you deny that, you're just kidding yourself.

---

Since you're only 16 I guess you haven't had enough time to really read history.

To give Uncle Joe credit for winning the war is wrong. Joe managed to stay in power while Zuhkov and the Red Army won the war. When the Germans first invaded Russia, 7 million Russians surrendered and volunteered to join the German Army to fight, not Mother Russia, but Uncle Joe. Because they were not Germans, Hitler refused to arm them. Many were sent to garrison duty in occupied Europe. The German's were initially treated as liberators (from Joe's oppression), but it didn't take long for them (the Russians) to realize their mistake.

Nox

Well another Dumbass that thinks that Uncle Joe was a great man. nasty did you ever learn about a German who was spying for the Russians by the name of Sorge? What he did (predicted hitler would invade Russia) and what your uncle Joe did for providing that info? (had him shot) If Uncle Joe is yours, or anyone's hero, then you really need to get your head checked. Joe was just like hitler in Military matters (killed off a great protion of the Red Army's top Officers) and it was a stroke of luck that they broke out of Stalingrad and won. Stalin killed so many of the great officers and aircraft designers (Imprisoned Alexander yakovlev, who designed the fighter that would finally overpower the Luftwaffe's BF109 and FW fighters) And hitler, who slept in during the D-Day invasion of normandy and fired the top General of Germany's armed forces (forget his name). As for Mouse, If we are so bad in spying on Russia, well we did and they did the same. However we once let a Soviet Spy aircraft stay the night in Alaska and we provided them with fuel which you say we get involved for in every conflict we have been in. While We still have men missing from Cold War shootdowns by the Russian PVO-Strany. i remember an incident over San Diego Naval Base a few years ago when a Chinese Airliner flew over the base at least twice claiming a navigational error.

Forgot to mention, it was turned away by Air Traffic Controllers. not shot down like the Russians did to KAL 007

Communists wanted to conqor the world, they wanted the world to be a communist entity, trotsy, mao, kruschev, breshnev, androkov, lenin, all wanted to export the revolution. mao kruschev breshnev and androkov all took active roles in this beyond moral guidance, and stalin wanted to conqour and gain as much influence as possible. Besides stalin would have outlived hitler by a good 9 years. Hitler had parkinsons it was doubtful he would have lived past 1948. All things considered though stalin was probably hitlers greatest ally against russia seeing as how he weakend it.

...not to mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which was responsible for starting the war.

I think both hitler and Stalin both knew that the pact wouldn't last. Stalin though was too stupid and executed anyone who tried to tell him including the NKVD agent who brought that info to him. He didn't believe anyone even as he was sending his troops east into Finland and poland and the Germans were on trains going into Russia starting the invasion

Hitler's succesor would be just as bad as Hitler. Hitler's succesor would be just as brutal, because merely the Nazi ideology required Hitler's degree of brutality.

After Hitler died, his regime would continue to the same tyranical degree. Stalin's deathw ould just cause DeStalinization.

The Communists did not want to take ove the world. They called for world wide Communist revolution, meaning they called for the people to bring communism to the world by any means neccesary - whether by force or in the voting booth. If the majority of the people were Communists, the cold war probably wouldn't have happened.

Hitler intended on conquering the world. Lenin and Trotsky called for worlswide revolution, Khrushchev wanted to expand the USSR's economic influence, and Breznev wanted to expand his control locally to protect nations from imperialism. No Communist leader would go on such an aggresive imperial conquest as Hitler.

Would you prefer that the Nazis won world war 2? I doubt it, since while Stalin was a phaze, Hitler's idea would remain within the Nazi party. No Gorbachev would come in and make liberal reforms that lead to the collapse of Nazism. It jus wouldn't happen. The Nazis would have to be put down by force.

Trotsky didn't apply anyway, because in the years leading up to World War 2 he basically condemned the USSR's existence.

Uncle,

Hitler's successor was Donitz. Your description hardly fits.

I keep trying to remember that you are only 16, but your uneducated drivel is getting to be a bore. I am growing weary of trying to educate you. You are trying to make your assumptions and opinions into facts and you are failing miserably. I suggest you take a few deep breaths and try reading a little history. I will then be happy to trade educated thoughts with you.

Nox

*sigh*


In once sentence: Stalin was worse then hitler, but Naziism is more dangerous then Communism.

If you deny this, then you'd have to morally justify the desire to exterminate a race over the desire to create a classless society. None of the Stalnist purges had anything to do with Communist ideology. The holocaust ENTAILS Nazi ideology.

The idea of national socialism is not more fearsome than international communism bouth systems repress the individuals ability to speak freely think freely and act freely, all the differnce is the color of the dog.

Compared to the other Top Nazi's Sentanced at nuremburg Donitz recieved the lowest sentence (10 years) and had the highest IQ (About 160 If I remember)

Ideologically, Communism doesn't supress human freedoms. In it's corrupted form, it does. Still, National Socialism is ten times worse, because they believe in the extermination of a fucking race. With an acception of the Khymer Rouge, no Communist regime was responsable for true genocide.

What the fuck is wrong with you people, giving Nazis the benefit of the doubt? Donitz helped organize the holocaust. I don't give a fuck how high his IQ is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz: With an acception of the Khymer Rouge, no Communist regime was responsable for true genocide.

---

Uncle,

Yet again you prove the accuracy of my previous post. So, I will once more try to educate you:

1. The Chinese in Tibet.

2. Stalin in the Ukraine.

3. The Vietnamese and all the hill tribes.

4. The Lao's and their hill tribes.

5. The list goes on...

Now, again I ask that you pull out a history book and get over your silly attempts at trying to make your drivel into facts.

Nox

I think extermination was more Hitler's twist on National Socialism than an ideal firmly rooted in it. At first, Hitler was just trying to deport the Jews, get them out of his homeland, because Jews are not from that region historically. The extermination started when "time was short," when Hitler felt the heat was on, so to say.

It seems the only completely anti-Jewish National Socialists are extremists, but some (majority, minority?) just want their race to be pure.

Actually the highest IQ was keitel at around 180 and doenetz recieved 5 years that bul halsey who testified in his defense said he didn't deserve, given the US used the same tactics as German U-boats against the japanese.

Stalin's actions in the Ukraine didn't get anywhere near "genocide." A few thousand Ukrainians refused to work on collective farms so he had the executed. If you're referring the starvation, that was do to a flaw, it wasn't intentional.

The Chinese did not want to kill all Tibetans. They simply wanted to oust Tibetan religios culture from society since it was backward. Those that rebelled were killed in struggles.

The hill tribes weren't government sancationed. They were rebels, some were ever US backed. If you reffered to troops that invaded villages where the south Vietnamese were based and killed civilians, the South Vietnamese did the exact same thing much more frequently. To refer to attacking civilian targets in war as genocide would be like calling bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide, or firebombing Tokyo and Dresden.

Exterminating 12 million people because of their race is on a whole nothing plain, and no matter how less extreme other Nazis were, they wouldn't done alot more damage to society if they had won world war 2.

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Exterminating 12 million people because of their race is on a whole nothing plain, and no matter how less extreme other Nazis were, they wouldn't done alot more damage to society if they had won world war 2.

---

Well, last I heard, the death count was somewhere around 6 Million, and I believe that was probably an exaggeration. Anyway, forget the numbers. The world would've been different, that is for sure. You can't exactly say it would be completely bad, though, because you have never seen 2002 in the German World. Maybe the German agenda would change with Hitlers death.

Just think of this: the America that the founders envisioned is not what exists today. Perhaps it would be the same for the German World.

Also, Stalin Sent many of his own people to labor camps and I think the count was about 22 million, but it isn't for sure since the NKVD and KGB didn't take names on who they sent to labor camps

Uncle,

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
Stalin's actions in the Ukraine didn't get anywhere near "genocide." A few thousand Ukrainians refused to work on collective farms so he had the executed. If you're referring the starvation, that was do to a flaw, it wasn't intentional.

The Chinese did not want to kill all Tibetans. They simply wanted to oust Tibetan religios culture from society since it was backward. Those that rebelled were killed in struggles.

The hill tribes weren't government sancationed. They were rebels, some were ever US backed. If you reffered to troops that invaded villages where the south Vietnamese were based and killed civilians, the South Vietnamese did the exact same thing much more frequently. To refer to attacking civilian targets in war as genocide would be like calling bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki genocide, or firebombing Tokyo and Dresden.

---

This is the last time I shall respond to one of your absolutely moronic posts.

After you wrote the bit about the Cubans who were killed, didn't die...my gag reflex took off...and now with this you have proven to me that you are posting this idiocy to get people to talk to you. I have tried to educate you, and I have tried to understand what you claim are points...wasted time. Your response was *sigh*.

Guess what pal, that is precisely how I feel. I care not whether others will feel the need to have intercourse with you, I do not. Get educated, then come talk to me.

Nox

Just wondering Nasty why is it that when people get fired while working in a capitalist system youre angry whereas when people are slaughtered under communism you state the necessity of the action? Im not sure about you, but for me unemployment beats death.

I also prefer voluntary military service over forced. Granted it's for an extra two years but you get to chose whether or not you can

When innocent people are killed, I denounce it. I denounce Stalin for his acts of brutality, and Mao for his "cultural revolution," and other corrupted Marxist regimes. Brutality isn't an ideological neccesity for Communism, while firing those you don't need is for capitalism. When counterrevolutionaries are punished, it's poroductive towards the majority, while capitalism punishes the majority.

It may not fit into the ideological pipe dream that is communism, but every communist state has proven the inatainablity of that state to exist. all of them collapse into repressive dictatorships and then you wonder why there are so many "counter revolutionaries," or as I view them, people with a grain of common sence to them.

Capitalisms track record of efficiency and innovation as well as greater benefit for the average man have shown it to be the supperior sytem pragmaticly, and its ideological doctrine of an ideological doctrine of an economic system governed by consentual agreements has proven itself attainable.

Alan, you don't take into account that a lot of states that attempted socialism or even a socialistic democracy were overthrown with our CIA and CIA backed forces and vigorously oppossed by us. Nicaragua, Haiti, Chile, Grenada, etc. Would they have crumbled into a dictatorship and failed? We'll never know. It's quite unfair to say that a certain type of economic system crumbled because it was inherently bad when powerful forces were actively trying to sabatoge it.

By the way, IMF style capitalism's track record in the third world is quite dismal.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 06-03-2002).]

Up until the 30s, there was no capitalist country where the majority prospered. There was always a ruling class that comprised a minority that exploited the majority. Then globalization came about, and some capitalist empires met the needs of most of it's civilians - at the expense of the majority of the third world.

Communist hasn't worked cause we haven't let it work. We've economically isolated the nations and forces them to spend all their money on defence. Communism will eventually succeed in Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea, once time accepts it's existence.

Mouse those socialist/communist states were overthrown by us to prevent the spread of communism. and there are many examples of communism not working. Also, North Korea isn't really isolated. many countries do have diplomatic relationships with them. So do Cuba, Veitnam, and Laos.

quote:

---

Mouse those socialist/communist states were overthrown by us to prevent the spread of communism.

---

...

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
...

---

...

Cuba is economically isolated, because the United States dominate the UN when it comes to Cuban trade issues.

Of course Vietnam isn't isolated, because it allows western natios to trade with it to tear down it's jungle and build hotels.

Yes, stop the spread of Communism and create puppet fascist states? You're saying Diem and his brutal dictatorship is superior to the democratically elecected Ho Chi Mihn and the north vietnamese? I suppose you'd prefer Batista to Castro? Stopping the spread of Communism and replacing it with brutal dictatorships that allow us to invest isn't an ideologicaly battle, not even remotely. It's a battle for money and empire, which drives our "stopping the spread of Communism" - overthrowing democratically elected governments and replacing them with fascist puppets.

yeah and the soviets conquored and opressed eastern Europe mearly to create a buffer zone. and the chinese invaded tibet to undermine budhism. bouth noble goals in your mind I am sure.

Why is it that most people seem to forget Soviet intervention in other countries affairs as well? When we put those dictators into power, We supported them because of their Pro-US, Anti-Soviet Stance and would support free elections and then stabbed us in the back the first chance they got. also, when the people rebelled against those governments we supported how many came out better off then before?

>>>>>Alan, you don't take into account that a lot of states that attempted socialism or even a socialistic democracy were overthrown with our CIA and CIA backed forces and vigorously oppossed by us. Nicaragua, Haiti, Chile, Grenada, etc. Would they have crumbled into a dictatorship and failed?<<<<<

Yes. Is there such a thing as stable south american anything?

>>>>We'll never know. It's quite unfair to say that a certain type of economic system crumbled because it was inherently bad when powerful forces were actively trying to sabatoge it.<<<<

Boo hoo. What communist organ of propaganda has been playing up that victim angle lately? I hadnt really seen this argument until a few months ago. Since then, its become the sole weapon of angry pampered asshole teenagers.


>>>By the way, IMF style capitalism's track record in the third world is quite dismal.<<<

We know, we just dont care. The track record of the third world doing anything is quite dismal.


>>>Up until the 30s, there was no capitalist country where the majority prospered. There was always a ruling class that comprised a minority that exploited the majority.<<<<

Thats true now too, youre just defining prospered differently. Obviously people had less shit; technologies were still new, transportation wasnt very fast, manufacturing was inefficient, etc, so goods were expensive.

>>>>Communist hasn't worked cause we haven't let it work. We've economically isolated the nations and forces them to spend all their money on defence. Communism will eventually succeed in Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea, once time accepts it's existence.<<<<

LMAO. By, "when time accepts its existence" you do mean, "when the rebels are all executed, and their children have been hopelessly brainwashed for another few generations" right?

And what about Russia? What percent of the worlds resources are IN Russia alone? Then you have to add the mineral wealth they could acquire from friendly African marxist puppets. Communism failed because it sucks, not because America somehow stifled it. Russia didnt need to trade with America for shit it has in its backyard. America doesnt even really have oil, the Soviets did. And dont pull that jackoff shit about "making it spend all its money on defense" because guess what, the Cold War is a two way street. Capitalist countries paid for defense at the same time. Communism just sucks, so does your family, so go make your mother hug you, play catch with your asshole father, and shut the fuck up already.

Joe, All the fascist governments we supported were worse then the Soviets, leaving your points meaningless.

Would you prefer Batista to Castro?
Milosovich to Tito?
Even The Czars to Lenin when the conflict began?

Only severe oppresion leads to a communist revolution, and the one point you're all failing to see is that communism can only exist with the support of the people. The people must revolt, and the people must maintain the state... that's what guarentees the state will meet the people's needs. If the people's needs are not met, the state will collapse.

Would you guys have liked to live under the glorious free market freedoms of Pinochet? Heh. It's a total fact that we purposely sabatoged any socialistic leaning government. That's what the cold war was about, remember? Contras? Invasion of Grenada? Hello, history? If socialism was so bad, why didn't we just let it "wither away" on it's own instead of sending death squads into the country? Or are you going to try and tell me that Aristide was a threat to the US?

The growth of socialism both cuts off labor for international capitalists, and inspires and motivates uppity rebels in capitalist countries, who now have bases of operations and models to follow.

Well gee, we can't have that can we? The growth of socialism is a threat because it will lessen the amount of countries internationals can go to get dirt cheap labor after firing the Americans? Peachy.

Wheras The growth of capitalism both cuts off labor for Socialists, and inspires and motivates uppity rebels in socialist countries, who now have bases of operations and models to follow. thats why they called it the cold war mouse. When the cold war started the soviets sphere had industrial resources equal to that of the capitalist sphere, and the addition on china led to the communist blocks having a greater industrial base than the capitalist block. Capitalism won because it was better.

"Capitalism" did not win. Our CIA forces against the ragged third world won, and Gorby called off the rest of the shit. Our economy isn't even "free markets". It's pretty much very protectionist for our own industries while forcing the "free market" and "private enterprise" dogma on the third world. If our economy is so "free market capitalist", then why do we subsidize and bail out certain companies with federal funds? Why are there riots and unrest all over the third world protesting IMF? "Capitalism" worked for nations that were already wealthy to begin with, and had huge industries with a history of protectionism. The nations that avoided horrible debt and unrest are the ones that told the IMF to fuck off and didn't privatize everything from the start, such as Botswana.

Capitalism obviously won...As I have said, and Alan has pointed out, Communism controlled equal or greater resources, it just cannot mobilize and utilize them efficiently because it is a bullshit system. Communism lost because Communism sucked, end of story.