the joke that is che

[tigre]

ardently anti-che, i am especially amused to know that che has become the cartoon like charecter that he has. the man was a complete failure. he was banished from cuba, only to fail in africa and later killed by his own communist brothers. the man is a picture of failure.

he was a coward that shot unarmed and bound MEN. infact the only true battle that he was credited with winning in cuba (santa clara), was infact actually led by camilo cienfuegos. i cant wait to see the responses to this thread and would challenge anyone to a true discussion on the issues.

[Commie Girl]

:blink: Where do you get your information? Have you done extensive reading and studying on his life and ideologies? A good place to start is the definitive biographyChe: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson

He chose to continue the Revolution in the Americas, and was not banished from Cuba. He wrote a book on Guerilla warfare that is considered to be one of the best books on the subject.

He was caught in Bolivia and executed by the Army, backed by the CIA.

Those RUMORS of killing bound men are just that, rumors. Surely you must concede that in a revolutionary situation, harsh measures are called for to keep the population safe.

[DRS]

Not even going to dignify this with a response

[Guest1]

:lol:

Seriously though, as you have admitted being a supporter of Capitalism, I will make you acquainted with the Che-Lives guidelines:


What is restriction, and what is the Opposing Ideologies forum?

Restriction is a measure the membership uses to focus the debate on this site. We are a group of progressive Leftists, after all. That is about as much as many of us have in common however. We disagree on how the society we envision will work, how best to emancipate the workers and many other issues. We need to debate these things respectfully, amongst ourselves. So we restrict debate about whether we should emancipate the workers at all to the Opposing Ideologies forum.

This is where all right-wingers are sent. This is where anyone who is too disruptive to proper debate is sent. There are other reasons for being restricted to OI of course, but generally, it requires behavior that is deemed in conflict with the membership's vision for this site.
Thus, you are now restricted.

Enjoy.

[The New Yorker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:00 AM
Not even going to dignify this with a response

You just did


Even capitalist can love che.

Che dedicated his whole life to the people what isnt good about this guy?

Yeah he was a communist (although ive read severl articles arguing he wasnt) but still he was a good guy.

Him shoting unarmed men and bound men assuming it is true. Dosnt mean shit to me things happen in war. Its what we call a soldiers life

[tigre]

where do i get my info? firsthand. not from some website. the fact than noone has picked up on my avatar shows what little you know of the man. i have spoken to men who served under him, over him and with him in various battles. i also know the cia operatives personally responsible for his death.

i agree that war does justify a certain degree of harshness and alot of the people he executed would have executed him if the situation was reversed. however where you have to draw the line is where you become judge, jury and executioner. that is exactly what happened in cuba. if you defend that then you must defend hitler and other such murderes. rumors? you just lost your arguement. if you respect the man as an ideoligist that is great, more power to you but to read a stupid book and believe that all he did was help people shows how misinformed you are.
i can respect the man on his principles as he was def true to them but it doesnt change the fact that he was hated by everyone he ever came in contact with (fidel included)

"He chose to continue the Revolution in the Americas, and was not banished from Cuba. He wrote a book on Guerilla warfare that is considered to be one of the best books on the subject.

He was caught in Bolivia and executed by the Army, backed by the CIA."

that is a joke. he was muscled out of the cuban government. before moving on to bolivia, he tried to fight in the congo. he was run out of that country a failure. during his failures in africa, castro turned on him by reading a letter che had given him to read upon his eventual death. it was castro's way of closing the door on his return to cuba. he then moved on to boliva. he was captured by the bolivian army (communst) and orderd dead by two cuban american cia agents.

get the facts straight. make this interesting, dont read a stupid book and think you know someone.

[Commie Girl]

Hopeless...

[tigre]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 3 2004, 01:57 PM
Hopeless...
what does this mean? is this all you have. i really thought there would be some good discussion.

[DRS]

Lets just say you can argue with a brick wall

[tigre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 02:26 PM
Lets just say you can argue with a brick wall
from what i can see, it would be much more interesting to debate. by the way i am not a right winger i am actually a democrat. i am sorry people on this board can't debate on facts.

[Sabocat]

i also know the cia operatives personally responsible for his death.

Be a love and give us their names and addresses then would ya?

:lol:

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:40 PM
where do i get my info? firsthand. not from some website. the fact than noone has picked up on my avatar shows what little you know of the man. i have spoken to men who served under him, over him and with him in various battles. i also know the cia operatives personally responsible for his death.


That doesnt mean anything. We can't know if what your saying is true.

[EL CHICO ROJO]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 09:34 AM
i am not a right winger i am actually a democrat.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h a democrat wow you'r a reeeeaal left wing extremist LOL

[tigre]

Originally posted by comrade [email protected] 3 2004, 02:46 PM
That doesnt mean anything. We can't know if what your saying is true.
that is fair. i have however specifically not brought in any hearsay into my post. what i have posted can easily verified. name me a revolution that he was a part of (other than cuba) that was successful. i maintain two points:

1. he was a complete failure-militarily- i dont feel he contributed anything of worth
2. the joke is on morons who wear his image as some sort of badge of honor. how woul this man feel today if he knew that his image is being used for capitalistic gains? this site makes money of selling his t-shirts. what a joke? he has become a cartoon character.

if you want to talk hearsay, i have many interesting stories.

[tigre]

Originally posted by EL CHICO [email protected] 3 2004, 02:57 PM
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h a democrat wow you'r a reeeeaal left wing extremist LOL
i never said i am an extremist. extremist are usually pimple faced geeks or people who use extreme views to hide the fact that they are not that inteligent.

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:40 PM
i have spoken to men who served under him, over him and with him in various battles. i also know the cia operatives personally responsible for his death.


Over him? Youv'e spoken with el jefe maximo? His killer, You know Felix Rodriguez? I think your full of shit my friend.

Despite setbcks that cannot be attributed to only one man - even one as exceptionl as Ernesto, it is folly to argue that this, doctor, philosophizer, banker, adventurer, revolutionary hero, father, commandante.. Is a failure. No wonder people won't engage you in serious debate when your whole premise is based on lies and provocative blanket statements.

[tigre]

what you fail to see is, like he did to che, castro turned on all his top commanders. many of whom live in the states. while che became the number 2 once castro came to power, he was not always in command of forces.

i know felix along with several others that were involved with his capture. my family was the revolution's chief enemy, so yes i have met many indivuduals on both sides of the fence. and no i haven't spoken to castro as i was born in the states.

again i haven't said anything provocative. i challenge you to point out a lie in any of my postings. i wanted to see how much people actually knew about che when i came on here and it is obvious that there isnt much substance.

[gaf]

brainwash machines can change in idol makin.and vise versa.no way people will ever live together.he did his best where people were showing their worse.shame to be human shame.
begin from scratch.without idol and brainwash machine.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:40 PM
where do i get my info? firsthand. not from some website. the fact than noone has picked up on my avatar shows what little you know of the man. i have spoken to men who served under him, over him and with him in various battles. i also know the cia operatives personally responsible for his death.

i agree that war does justify a certain degree of harshness and alot of the people he executed would have executed him if the situation was reversed. however where you have to draw the line is where you become judge, jury and executioner. that is exactly what happened in cuba. if you defend that then you must defend hitler and other such murderes. rumors? you just lost your arguement. if you respect the man as an ideoligist that is great, more power to you but to read a stupid book and believe that all he did was help people shows how misinformed you are.
i can respect the man on his principles as he was def true to them but it doesnt change the fact that he was hated by everyone he ever came in contact with (fidel included)

"He chose to continue the Revolution in the Americas, and was not banished from Cuba. He wrote a book on Guerilla warfare that is considered to be one of the best books on the subject.

He was caught in Bolivia and executed by the Army, backed by the CIA."

that is a joke. he was muscled out of the cuban government. before moving on to bolivia, he tried to fight in the congo. he was run out of that country a failure. during his failures in africa, castro turned on him by reading a letter che had given him to read upon his eventual death. it was castro's way of closing the door on his return to cuba. he then moved on to boliva. he was captured by the bolivian army (communst) and orderd dead by two cuban american cia agents.

get the facts straight. make this interesting, dont read a stupid book and think you know someone.

where do i get my info? firsthand. not from some website. the fact than noone has picked up on my avatar shows what little you know of the man.
What avatar?


i have spoken to men who served under him, over him and with him in various battles. i also know the cia operatives personally responsible for his death.
Names? Who killed him? Who served under him?


however where you have to draw the line is where you become judge, jury and executioner. that is exactly what happened in cuba.
What about the Neurenberg trials after World War 2?


if you defend that then you must defend hitler and other such murderes. rumors? you just lost your arguement.
Ah ok...so wait...this does not make any sense at all...


if you respect the man as an ideoligist that is great, more power to you but to read a stupid book and believe that all he did was help people shows how misinformed you are.

Yeah...books are really stupid :rolleyes: but who would you consider a great ideologist, somebody who helped the people? Trujillo? Pinochet? Batista?


i can respect the man on his principles as he was def true to them but it doesnt change the fact that he was hated by everyone he ever came in contact with
Ok...any evidence for this? And uhm many great people in history were hated at the time for their ideas, wasnt George Washington hated by the English, wasnt Ghandi (sp?) in India hated by the English?


he was captured by the bolivian army (communst) and orderd dead by two cuban american cia agents.

The Bolivian army were far from communists, you think the US helps communists? Yes Che did not work with the Communist party in Bolivia, but the Bolivian government (and thereby also the military) were far from being communists.

How old are you if I may ask? I mean...I havent seen another restricted member made such dumb posts here...well except this one who called Bill Clinton a communist :lol:

[LuZhiming]

Che Guevara is a failure. You can start by looking at his revolutions. His first actions were in Guatemala, where he tried to bring together some Communist Party members and a few others to engage in violent action against Castillo Armas, who with U.S. help invaded Guatemala and overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz. Nothing really came out of Che Guevara's attempts, which is understandable since he didn't stand a chance here. Then there was the Cuban Revolution, which was successful. Of course, one has to point out that Che's role is largely exagerated, without Fidel's leadership, strategy, rationality, and charisma, as well as Camilo Cienfuegos' military ability, Che would have been nothing. Che Guevara moved on to the Congo to attempt to fight the Western forces and their despots in the country. This too failed, but again, maybe one can say that it may be too much to completely blame this on Che considering the difficulty of the situation(Personally, I think the reason for Che not having worse failures is because he was largely restrained by Raul and Fidel). With the exception of the minor actions in Guatemala, these other revolutions were ones in which Che Guevara was restrained, and under a lot of control from more rational people like Fidel and Raul Castro. Guevara then returned to Cuba with the hope of launching another "revolution" in Bolivia, to which Fidel had objections. Che did not like this, and the hot-headed idiot left the country to go to Bolivia so he could launch a new "revolution" all by himself. It was soon found out that there were some problems: Che Guevara and his collection of distrustful/disloyal fighters amazingly had less support than the Bolivian government did. Guevara desperately needed help from Cuba, but Fidel Castro had no interest in sending troops for this failed Revolution which he already had warned Che against taking. So fo course, Che Guevara was killed and his guerillas were split apart. While Che Guevara is remembered as the revolutionary, the Cuban government has successful interventions in Guinea-Bissau, Algeria, and Angola without Che's help.

What about his "values?" Looking at Che Guevara's ideas, and thinking hypothetically if he could implement them in Cuba, I believe he would have wanted Cuba to carry out a ruthless program of industrialization, with huge human costs, thus wiping out the independent peasentry of the country just like the Soviet Union did, and also like the Soviet Union, these actions would later plague Cuba with low food production, economic decline, and further deterioration of support for the government ruling Cuba. I also think Che would have made executions much more common-place in Cuba than they are now, he seemed to be fond of them. His foreign policy would be bold no doubt, but incredibly reactionary, making Cuba even more isolated than it is today, and possibly decreasing the lifespan of the Cuban government. Sure, Che Guevara may have had all sorts of vague rhetoric about 'fighting for the people' and other claims, however the same can be said of people like Osama bin Laden. But when it comes down to it, his actual beliefs, the ones he elaborates on and not some vague claims of justice, are dispicable.

The conclusion I reach on Che Guevara is this: He was a failure, and a hot-headed and irrational person who always too quickly resorted to violence. He was brave, but lacked any serious vision of how to make people's lives better and usually disregarded popular sentiment anyway. His revolutions were horrible, mainly because he disregarded popular sentiment and was reactionary, meaning Che Guevara did not really know how to actually create a populist Revolution, and instead preferred having battles between isolated armies and government troops. There is no doubt he was popular, he certainly was able to encourage a lot of people to believe in him and join him through his courage and dedication, but again I think this support would fade away if his policies were ever to be carried out. He probably believed in some kind of values and thought he was doing the right thing(I think the fact that he was a doctor highlights this), but like Osama bin Laden or soldiers of the Crusaders, that was because he was a fanatic, which also explains why he was so quick to carry out executions or carry out brave but irrational actions which disregarded everyone else's views. The romanticism of Che Guevara mainly by pot-smoking teenagers is temporarily humorous, but pitiful and annoying too. As I have said before, people like Fidel Castro, Jacobo Arbenz, Maurice Bishop, or Salvador Allende are the ones with real solutions, the Che Guevaras, Emiliano Zapatos, Pancho Villas, and indeed the Osama bin Laden's of this world are too reactionary, fanatical, and violent to ever do much good for the world. Sorry, but I really don't care much for Che Guevara, he would have been better if he just spent his life as a doctor.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:01 PM
name me a revolution that he was a part of (other than cuba) that was successful
Was one not enough?

I think you're being a tad harsh.

[__ca va?]

1. he was a complete failure-militarily- i dont feel he contributed anything of worth
2. the joke is on morons who wear his image as some sort of badge of honor. how woul this man feel today if he knew that his image is being used for capitalistic gains? this site makes money of selling his t-shirts. what a joke? he has become a cartoon character.

The first one is not true. He wasn't bad militarily, he was a bad politician and a bad leader. I'll discuss this when I'll discuss LuZhiming's post.
I agree about Che would be ashamed seeng himself used by the capitalists. I have told this many times in this forum. And as far as I know this site uses the money coming from the webshop to fund leftist movements and this site. If so, selling t-shirts is okay for me.

About LuZhiming's post, I partly agree with you. Che wasn't a military genius. Though he wasn't a bad strategist: you didn't tell us the reasons of his failures in Congo and Bolivia.
In Congo the Cuban revolutionaries were treated with hostility and suspect because of their white complexion. In fact the africans didn't know why these white men are minding their business. Che didn't like the morale of that revolution either. The revolutionaries of Kongo were eating and enjoying themselves all the time. This was not the discipline Che liked. The Cubans lost weight and couldn't even have a bath or something. They were almost kept prisoners by the ones they wanted to help!

He went to Bolivia with a group of his former soldiers who had fought with him in the Cuban revolution. But morale was very bad here too: the men didn't want to work and alltogether they refused to keep any of the rules Che made them. In fact they were found when a group of his careless soldiers had gotten into a gun-fight with some Bolivian troops. The group was overall disorganized. And that's why I say he was a bad leader. A good leader can always organize his men.

You said:

He probably believed in some kind of values and thought he was doing the right thing ... , but like Osama bin Laden or soldiers of the Crusaders, that was because he was a fanatic, which also explains why he was so quick to carry out executions or carry out brave but irrational actions which disregarded everyone else's views

I don't know what you are talking about. Have you read his Bolivian diary?? In fact he didn't have the heart to punish those that had threaten the guerilla with their behavior! When once he hit one of his men (of course with a good reason) he had remords all day and apologized at the end!!

And he started the revolution in bolivia just the same time the government launched a high-scale land giving program to the poor! Because of these radical reforms the guajiros were of course keen on supporting the government that had already given them something instead of the guerilleros who had wanted bloodshed and were foreigners after all!


Looking at Che Guevara's ideas, and thinking hypothetically if he could implement them in Cuba, I believe he would have wanted Cuba to carry out a ruthless program of industrialization, with huge human costs, thus wiping out the independent peasentry of the country just like the Soviet Union did

Nah! He never even wanted to be a leader of a country! And I don't think he could heve been cruel enough. He was idealistic, but not a serial killer! If someone becomes a doctor he must have at least a minimum of empathy.

I mostly agree with your 3rd paragraph until

.....was able to encourage a lot of people to believe in him and join him through his courage and dedication,

but don't agree with what you say after this part. Comparing him to Osama means you have completely misunderstood his personality, and this is also what your whole post reflects.

[__ca va?]

Oh, I've forgotten to post my main opinion: he is not popular and loved because he was a good leader or a good soldier, but because he was a good person. And that is something more important than being a genious in logistics.
:che:

[Sabocat]

extremist are usually pimple faced geeks or people who use extreme views to hide the fact that they are not that inteligent.


LOL. :lol: :lol:

[The New Yorker]

You guys (the Communist) will have to get used to such arguments and beliefs. This is a common belief of many people through out the world. What you need is more factual proof for what your saying. Blind faith is nothing.

Your in ability to argue this shows that some of you really aren’t communist and are just a group of people who have read the writings of communist and totally ignored the weightings of such capitalist as say, Milton Friedman.

before posting on what I’ve just said please read my views of Che that I have posted on this thread.

[Bolshevist]

It is a bit hard to take a person posting on a internet board claiming to know Che's killer seriously.

Other than that, he has not even backed up his arguments with reliable information. It feels like when Discovery channel called Che a massmurderer because he sentanced a lot of people to death in a warcrime-court.

Even if these claims are true, I would still support Che for what he did for his people and his fight for injustice. After all, he was just a human and we tend to make mistakes. Of course the former ruling class of Cuba would think low of Che, what do you think the Kulaks felt against Lenin...

[Guest1]

We don't argue with this guy, cause he's admitted he's a gusano.

He said his family was one of the big opposers of the revolution, meaning that they were rich fucking supporters of Batista who would rather leave the country and vote to have the US starve their own people than ever see them free and taking control of their own lives.

As far as I'm concerned, gusanos can go fuck themselves and die.

[Bourgeoisie]

Che would be rolling over in his grave (if he had one) if he new his name and face wasn't nothing more than a Capitalist logo, much like Col. Sanders. :P

[Forward Union]

Yes, he probably would.

[fuerzasocialista]

Coño, its unbelievable till this day what kind of shit people can come up with. To call el Che a failure is an offense to all of us that has been influenced by his writings and example. I believe that he played an integral part in the '59 revolution and to attempt to dispute that is an attempt to dispute history. If el Che had no charisma, no appeal, you wouldn't see his image posted on murals in Havana or in the slums of other Latin-American nations as a symbol of hope. The fact that we as Latinos can identify with a revolutionary such as el Che is testament that he was no failure. And its not limited to just Latin-America; His influence can be found in the revolutionary struggles in Europe and the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc. He has accomplished more than your typical politician or general. He lived and died by the sword. You can't be anymore noble than to die for your cause but more over die for the betterment of your fellow man.


"Modelo Ejemplar De Un Hombre Revolucionario"

[Comrade Hector]

The stupidity of the right-wingers on this forum is unbelievable! Killed by his own Communists? You know somehow I really don't think the Bolivian National Army were Communists. What type of Communist would be trained by the murderous CIA? Che was no joke, but a dedicated Revolutionary whom posed a serious threat to US business and profits in the Third World. Let's look at some real jokes: JFK, RFK, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Baby Bush. Let me stop here for now and see what the conservative and liberal scumbags have to say about these sorry excuses for human beings.

[NovelGentry]

I don't usually like to jump into flamebait, but let's clear up some things. First and foremost the rumor that he shot bound unarmed men is founded, these men were tried and put to execution, not by Che alone, but by a committee organized by the revolutionary government directly after it's overthrow of the Batista regime. Furthermore, these trials were held for the most part publically, publically in the sense that it was the public who condemned these men to death, not Che. There was even a number of trials which were recorded -- some of the witnesses in these include a small boy who testified that his family was murdered by a group of Batista's soldiers for denying them food and shelter while tracking some of the guerilla forces. Other testimony includes that of young females and wives who sought revolutionary justice for a number of Batista's men who were pointed out by a number of people as having committed rape and murder against the people. Capital punishment is by no means relinquished here in the states, and of those who receive it are those convicted of rape and murder. Realize it was the people who sought the death penalty in the majority of these cases, not the Cuban government.

On the topic of Che being a poor soldier and military strategist, I think one must refer to a number of first hand accounts. In a number of situations Che's strategies were as good as anyone elses and they failed through lack of discipline among certain Guerillas. There are multiple accounts of the Cuban revolution from Che himself, Carlos, and a few others who served under him which I recall from a documentary, in which the major cause of failure can be accounted to undiscplined soldiers. Ambushes were ruined when shots were fired too early. Attacks on barracks were brought to standstills for periods of times when groups were not properly advancing. In one recount Che willingly admits that one of the groups he was commanding was pinned down in a situation, and had it not been for the actions of Carlos the entire operation may have failed. The entire revolution was a situation where guerillas were armed with guns that would constantly jam, would quickly run out of ammo, or simply did not have the means to produce an efficient attack. They lacked any real explosives, most of their mines failed to detonate, and the launchable version of the molatov cocktail which they produced was noted by Che as having an effect that did not mame or harm the enemy, but simply sent them into disarray due to limited range and accuracy.

As far as being muscled out of Cuba I think you fail to realize the entire situation. Che himself realized the failure on Russia's part to supply them with what they truly needed, and his attempts to industrialize were only made to counteract that. Without strong industry the nation could not survive independently of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union had let them down on every occasion thus far. For this Che could not understand Fidel's attachment and warned Fidel both publically and privately of the need to break dependence on them. Upon his leaving to the Congo Che left the letter to Fidel with dual purpose... the first was mentioned, in the case of his death, however, if you read the letter you may notice that Che makes a very strong point of distancing himself from Cuba. This would not be an issue if he was dead, as you can't get much more distance other than Death. Che's secondary purpose for the letter was in the event that Fidel had to settle Russian interests by providing proof that Che was no longer influencing the government. Why else would he make it a point to say that he renounced not only every position he held in government, but also his citizenship? What would it matter if he had died and been a citizen? He would no longer hold political power from his death, nor would he have any influence. Thus the letter is first and foremost a political backup which was to be used in the event of an political emergency.

I think it is important to view the letter in it's proper sense, because it represents greatly the understanding that Che had of political and government necessities. While many of his plans for industrialization did fail, much of this was due to failure on Russia's part to provide the needs of Cuba which it promised to provide. Che saw this as a betrayal and as such it only furthered his wish to break the dependence. It is also well known, through first hand accounts of an economic ambassador to JFK that Che tried to restore negotiations with the U.S. -- to end the blockade and restore some of the sugar export. Much like in his revolutions, the issue was not so much with Che as it was with the failure of the people who were supposed to support him, or the failure of the people to whom he was trying to gain support from.

I'm not sure many failures at all can be directly accounted to Che, in fact on all levels he seemed to have a very sound opinion which could have truly made all of his tasks a success. It is instead a failure of people, guerillas, and nations as a whole which have lead to this kind of thinking. If Che failed to succeed in making an independent communist nation of Cuba it was not by any fault of his. If he failed to succeed in revolution in Bolivia as the Cubans did in Cuba, it is the fault of the peasantry who failed to support him, and furthermore consistently tipped off the army to their position, aswell as the failure of the Communist party there to give him backing.

In short, if it seems as Che was a failure it is not because he failed in the world, but because the world failed him. Maybe that is his only one true failure, believing that the world was ready for what he imagined it could be.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 12:41 PM
Che Guevara is a failure. You can start by looking at his revolutions. His first actions were in Guatemala, where he tried to bring together some Communist Party members and a few others to engage in violent action against Castillo Armas, who with U.S. help invaded Guatemala and overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz. Nothing really came out of Che Guevara's attempts, which is understandable since he didn't stand a chance here. Then there was the Cuban Revolution, which was successful. Of course, one has to point out that Che's role is largely exagerated, without Fidel's leadership, strategy, rationality, and charisma, as well as Camilo Cienfuegos' military ability, Che would have been nothing. Che Guevara moved on to the Congo to attempt to fight the Western forces and their despots in the country. This too failed, but again, maybe one can say that it may be too much to completely blame this on Che considering the difficulty of the situation(Personally, I think the reason for Che not having worse failures is because he was largely restrained by Raul and Fidel). With the exception of the minor actions in Guatemala, these other revolutions were ones in which Che Guevara was restrained, and under a lot of control from more rational people like Fidel and Raul Castro. Guevara then returned to Cuba with the hope of launching another "revolution" in Bolivia, to which Fidel had objections. Che did not like this, and the hot-headed idiot left the country to go to Bolivia so he could launch a new "revolution" all by himself. It was soon found out that there were some problems: Che Guevara and his collection of distrustful/disloyal fighters amazingly had less support than the Bolivian government did. Guevara desperately needed help from Cuba, but Fidel Castro had no interest in sending troops for this failed Revolution which he already had warned Che against taking. So fo course, Che Guevara was killed and his guerillas were split apart. While Che Guevara is remembered as the revolutionary, the Cuban government has successful interventions in Guinea-Bissau, Algeria, and Angola without Che's help.

What about his "values?" Looking at Che Guevara's ideas, and thinking hypothetically if he could implement them in Cuba, I believe he would have wanted Cuba to carry out a ruthless program of industrialization, with huge human costs, thus wiping out the independent peasentry of the country just like the Soviet Union did, and also like the Soviet Union, these actions would later plague Cuba with low food production, economic decline, and further deterioration of support for the government ruling Cuba. I also think Che would have made executions much more common-place in Cuba than they are now, he seemed to be fond of them. His foreign policy would be bold no doubt, but incredibly reactionary, making Cuba even more isolated than it is today, and possibly decreasing the lifespan of the Cuban government. Sure, Che Guevara may have had all sorts of vague rhetoric about 'fighting for the people' and other claims, however the same can be said of people like Osama bin Laden. But when it comes down to it, his actual beliefs, the ones he elaborates on and not some vague claims of justice, are dispicable.

The conclusion I reach on Che Guevara is this: He was a failure, and a hot-headed and irrational person who always too quickly resorted to violence. He was brave, but lacked any serious vision of how to make people's lives better and usually disregarded popular sentiment anyway. His revolutions were horrible, mainly because he disregarded popular sentiment and was reactionary, meaning Che Guevara did not really know how to actually create a populist Revolution, and instead preferred having battles between isolated armies and government troops. There is no doubt he was popular, he certainly was able to encourage a lot of people to believe in him and join him through his courage and dedication, but again I think this support would fade away if his policies were ever to be carried out. He probably believed in some kind of values and thought he was doing the right thing(I think the fact that he was a doctor highlights this), but like Osama bin Laden or soldiers of the Crusaders, that was because he was a fanatic, which also explains why he was so quick to carry out executions or carry out brave but irrational actions which disregarded everyone else's views. The romanticism of Che Guevara mainly by pot-smoking teenagers is temporarily humorous, but pitiful and annoying too. As I have said before, people like Fidel Castro, Jacobo Arbenz, Maurice Bishop, or Salvador Allende are the ones with real solutions, the Che Guevaras, Emiliano Zapatos, Pancho Villas, and indeed the Osama bin Laden's of this world are too reactionary, fanatical, and violent to ever do much good for the world. Sorry, but I really don't care much for Che Guevara, he would have been better if he just spent his life as a doctor.
Excellent response, Lu. I can't say much more than that.

I'd also like to refer you all to The Anarchist Tension's article (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=28646), which certainly makes some good points.

[Danton]

If Che Guevara was a failure the why are you here? What originally drew you to this website? The fact that he continues to this day to inspire and make people question traditional western values and become interested in leftist politics or general rebelllion - is testimony to his outstanding legacy.

Creating continent wide revolution is no easy task and yet because Che is involved expectations are raised, he instilled a consiousness amongst the youth of the world not just Latin America that continues to grow and echo around the planet. What the fuck have you ever done?

[Palmares]

Well said Danton.

So because Che didn't succeed in all of his ventures he is a 'failure'? What kind of logic is that? I think his legacy is that he fought for what he believed in. It is not important whether he 'won' or lost' as such, but rather that he tried.

[fernando]

If we worked with the idea win/lose then Jesus Christ would have been a failure too...I mean wasnt he the King of the Jews or something? And then they practically give him away to the Romans to be killed...now there is an idea for a thread

JESUS WAS A FAILURE!

:lol:

[Palmares]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:23 AM
JESUS WAS A FAILURE!

:lol:
Touche.

Infact, under that thinking, who wasn't/isn't a failure? :lol:

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:51 AM
If Che Guevara was a failure the why are you here? What originally drew you to this website? The fact that he continues to this day to inspire and make people question traditional western values and become interested in leftist politics or general rebelllion - is testimony to his outstanding legacy.
You're right, Che has done an excellent job of raising leftist awareness (though I came here initially due to Che-Lives's leftist politics, not due to Che's reputation). However, that doesn't make him a good person. A lot of the popularity he's gained can be attributed to nothing but his rugged "revolutionary" looks, and the Korda photo, of course.


[...] he instilled a consiousness amongst the youth of the world not just Latin America that continues to grow and echo around the planet.
...

The youth of the world, maybe, but not Latin America. Look at Latin America today. Capitalism rules everything. The youth I've spoken to in Belize, Trinidad, and Guatemala (and I've spoken to quite a few in some rather remote places, so don't get started on the "you only talked to the people around the hotels and tourist attractions!". I lived in Belize last year and the year before, working at a field station) don't know or care about Che, with the exception of one or two who knew that he was "a famous revolutionary, but a crazy communist" (actual words).


What the fuck have you ever done?
Nothing. I never suggested that I was any better than Che, nor did anyone else in this thread.


So because Che didn't succeed in all of his ventures he is a 'failure'? What kind of logic is that? I think his legacy is that he fought for what he believed in. It is not important whether he 'won' or lost' as such, but rather that he tried.
Alright, that's great. But what ventures did Che succeed in?! Cuba was the work of Fidel Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos - Castro rallied the troops, Cienfuegos had the military might and strategy. Che did only follow-up work for both.


JESUS WAS A FAILURE!
Of course! What do you think I am, some sort of religious zealot? :lol:

[Nas]

thats true , you cant get all the information from someone just by reading books, and i know what happened in Cuba was not really a revolution rather an insurrection but the spirit Che and his friends had, was revolutionary, i mean they made a premature revolution, even not adequate at that time, but they succeeded

latin america has been influenced by left politics of Europe, China etc, since before there was Che and Cuba but the youth of America has specially bonded with Che, many people see Che as symbol of a revolutionary spirit, the fact that he was "young" and had a determination, was a soldier with different beliefs and for many leftists , he stands as someone who defeated capitalism in Cuba


che was no politician rather a soldier , he was a unique man very different from the people who came before him , who else was like Che ? Castro?? Castro became a dictator (im not saying he is bad) and if Che would have stay in Cuba do you think he would've become someone like Castro ? Che had not that much experience in that , he was a doctor

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 12:29 AM
But what ventures did Che succeed in?! Cuba was the work of Fidel Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos - Castro rallied the troops, Cienfuegos had the military might and strategy. Che did only follow-up work for both.



To insist that the Cuban revolution was the work of only two men is plain silly. It was the work of a whole people - that's what revolutions are. It is offensive to omit the contributions of the nameless thousands who supported the July 26 movement. Inevitably certain charachters emerge who are seen as the face of such a movement, none more so than Fidel. Che is one of these, as are Cienfuegos, Sanchez, Piniero etc..

However for Che this was only one episode in a lifetime dedicated to bringing about equality, whether this was through teaching illiterates, working the sugar crops, using his renown to further Cuba's cause in diplomatic circles or fighting tooth and nail against better trained and prepared troops with better equipment.

You call him "rugged looking" and suppose that he was just this pretty poster boy? Tell me, what good is it being handsome in a revolutionary situation? If that's all he was about then why didn't he choose to stay in decadent Mexico city and become a movie star? Please, that's just the fashionable attitude of jaded anarchists..

It's a shame when purported leftists attack without purpose (other than trying to appear smart or different) one of the truly outstanding individuals of the last century and feel able to judge him for delivering anything other than continent wide revolution......

" Ernesto "Che" Guevara was the most complete human being of our age."
(Jean Paul Sartre)
"I could write a thousand years and a million pages about Che Guevara."
(Gabriel Garcia Marquez)

[fernando]

Well...when I was in Peru I spoke to people and they were very pro Che, the concept of a united Latin America appealed to them, they were not all communists, but they were pro Revolution.

Same with friends I spoke in Argentina and Chile.

[synthesis]

I'll probably just be repeating what others have said, but with regards to Che's life, I think the admiration stems less from what he actually accomplished but from the effort he put into accomplishing what he did. He could have had a relatively cushy position in the Cuban government, but he chose to continue the revolutionary (albeit Leninist) struggle in Africa and elsewhere in Latin America. That sort of self-sacrifice is appealing to many bourgeois leftists.

I think what it boils down to is that many of Che's critics seem to be forgetting a certain truism: our actions are the only thing we can control. The outcomes thereof are an entirely different matter. Making the effort to achieve a result is all a human can do, and when someone puts forth a heroic amount of the aforementioned effort - especially one who could have easily chosen to do otherwise - he is likely to receive praise from his fellow man.

Should it be any other way?

[321]

the thing about che being so popular is that he is inspiration to people not because he may or may not have been a great war hero/revolutionary . It is sort of like how whether or not Jesus did all that stuff isn't as important to most christians as his messege and how he stuck to his guns even when he was going to die.

[DarkAngel]

The joke that Bush is....

[RageAgainstTheMachine]

Its sick to see people slag off che guevara hes a national hero he fought for what he belived just like nelson mandela he spent all his life in prison because a couple of people didnt like what he said. people need heros like mandela and che because it gives us hope

[Quiet Storm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 03:41 PM
Che Guevara is a failure. You can start by looking at his revolutions. His first actions were in Guatemala, where he tried to bring together some Communist Party members and a few others to engage in violent action against Castillo Armas, who with U.S. help invaded Guatemala and overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz. Nothing really came out of Che Guevara's attempts, which is understandable since he didn't stand a chance here. Then there was the Cuban Revolution, which was successful. Of course, one has to point out that Che's role is largely exagerated, without Fidel's leadership, strategy, rationality, and charisma, as well as Camilo Cienfuegos' military ability, Che would have been nothing. Che Guevara moved on to the Congo to attempt to fight the Western forces and their despots in the country. This too failed, but again, maybe one can say that it may be too much to completely blame this on Che considering the difficulty of the situation(Personally, I think the reason for Che not having worse failures is because he was largely restrained by Raul and Fidel). With the exception of the minor actions in Guatemala, these other revolutions were ones in which Che Guevara was restrained, and under a lot of control from more rational people like Fidel and Raul Castro. Guevara then returned to Cuba with the hope of launching another "revolution" in Bolivia, to which Fidel had objections. Che did not like this, and the hot-headed idiot left the country to go to Bolivia so he could launch a new "revolution" all by himself. It was soon found out that there were some problems: Che Guevara and his collection of distrustful/disloyal fighters amazingly had less support than the Bolivian government did. Guevara desperately needed help from Cuba, but Fidel Castro had no interest in sending troops for this failed Revolution which he already had warned Che against taking. So fo course, Che Guevara was killed and his guerillas were split apart. While Che Guevara is remembered as the revolutionary, the Cuban government has successful interventions in Guinea-Bissau, Algeria, and Angola without Che's help.

What about his "values?" Looking at Che Guevara's ideas, and thinking hypothetically if he could implement them in Cuba, I believe he would have wanted Cuba to carry out a ruthless program of industrialization, with huge human costs, thus wiping out the independent peasentry of the country just like the Soviet Union did, and also like the Soviet Union, these actions would later plague Cuba with low food production, economic decline, and further deterioration of support for the government ruling Cuba. I also think Che would have made executions much more common-place in Cuba than they are now, he seemed to be fond of them. His foreign policy would be bold no doubt, but incredibly reactionary, making Cuba even more isolated than it is today, and possibly decreasing the lifespan of the Cuban government. Sure, Che Guevara may have had all sorts of vague rhetoric about 'fighting for the people' and other claims, however the same can be said of people like Osama bin Laden. But when it comes down to it, his actual beliefs, the ones he elaborates on and not some vague claims of justice, are dispicable.

The conclusion I reach on Che Guevara is this: He was a failure, and a hot-headed and irrational person who always too quickly resorted to violence. He was brave, but lacked any serious vision of how to make people's lives better and usually disregarded popular sentiment anyway. His revolutions were horrible, mainly because he disregarded popular sentiment and was reactionary, meaning Che Guevara did not really know how to actually create a populist Revolution, and instead preferred having battles between isolated armies and government troops. There is no doubt he was popular, he certainly was able to encourage a lot of people to believe in him and join him through his courage and dedication, but again I think this support would fade away if his policies were ever to be carried out. He probably believed in some kind of values and thought he was doing the right thing(I think the fact that he was a doctor highlights this), but like Osama bin Laden or soldiers of the Crusaders, that was because he was a fanatic, which also explains why he was so quick to carry out executions or carry out brave but irrational actions which disregarded everyone else's views. The romanticism of Che Guevara mainly by pot-smoking teenagers is temporarily humorous, but pitiful and annoying too. As I have said before, people like Fidel Castro, Jacobo Arbenz, Maurice Bishop, or Salvador Allende are the ones with real solutions, the Che Guevaras, Emiliano Zapatos, Pancho Villas, and indeed the Osama bin Laden's of this world are too reactionary, fanatical, and violent to ever do much good for the world. Sorry, but I really don't care much for Che Guevara, he would have been better if he just spent his life as a doctor.
Its Emiliano Zapata.not Zapatos :rolleyes:

[synthesis]

Crime of crimes!

[Xvall]

http://www.efsis.com/news/newsjpg_gif/issue5pics/burger.jpg

[Xvall]

http://focus.msn.de/D/DG/DGA/DGAC/DGAC04/burger.jpg

[Xvall]

http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/scc/icsf/library/tragic/tragic_cards/burger%20king.jpg

[Danton]

My, that is a tasty burger.

[cubist]

big kahuna burger, wow that is one tasty burger. mmmm

[cubist]

THE JOKE THAT IS tigre on a che-lives board when hes so ardently anti che? why do you waste your time with us your gracefullness,

go tell someone who cares what you think try stormfront or something.

[Bruntovelli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 10:38 PM
ardently anti-che, i am especially amused to know that che has become the cartoon like charecter that he has. the man was a complete failure. he was banished from cuba, only to fail in africa and later killed by his own communist brothers. the man is a picture of failure.

he was a coward that shot unarmed and bound MEN. infact the only true battle that he was credited with winning in cuba (santa clara), was infact actually led by camilo cienfuegos. i cant wait to see the responses to this thread and would challenge anyone to a true discussion on the issues.
ok firstly, Che wasnt a failure in Cuba, he was killed because he though that all 3rd world countrys were like cuba. fortunatly cuba was a one of a kind in south america.

what Che stood for. he wasnt a failure at all.

I agree he like the iraq war has been considerbly "sexed up"
what i dont agree with is what he stood for. he was with out a doubt a Terrorist and a misfit.
i have actully read what he stands for. he like all leftwingers are missguided and have there head-above the cloulds, a united africa is a joke. a united south america is again a joke and above all Communism does not work, it never has and never will on a mass stage. My view is that communism, socialism, marxism
are only for people who cannont quite understand politics on a mass stage simply no one can be equal.

[Commie Girl]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 04:28 PM
ok firstly, Che wasnt a failure in Cuba, he was killed because he though that all 3rd world countrys were like cuba. fortunatly cuba was a one of a kind in south america.

what Che stood for. he wasnt a failure at all.

I agree he like the iraq war has been considerbly "sexed up"
what i dont agree with is what he stood for. he was with out a doubt a Terrorist and a misfit.
i have actully read what he stands for. he like all leftwingers are missguided and have there head-above the cloulds, a united africa is a joke. a united south america is again a joke and above all Communism does not work, it never has and never will on a mass stage. My view is that communism, socialism, marxism
are only for people who cannont quite understand politics on a mass stage simply no one can be equal.
Looks like someone needs to pick up a book and educate themselves! :D ...

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 23 2004, 11:15 PM
Looks like someone needs to pick up a book and educate themselves! :D ...
Yeah.. like yourself.

Try reading up on the history surrounding the Berlin Wall. IE: One country split down the middle - one side chooses capitalism, the other socialism. One side had great wealth, prosperity and high living standards. The other had poverty, oppression and very low living standards. Which is which?

Subvert, that - commies.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 23 2004, 11:15 PM
Looks like someone needs to pick up a book and educate themselves! :D ...
Yeah.. like yourself.

Try reading up on the history surrounding the Berlin Wall. IE: One country split down the middle - one side chooses capitalism, the other socialism. One side had great wealth, prosperity and high living standards. The other had poverty, oppression and very low living standards. Which is which?

Subvert, that - commies.

[Nyder]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 23 2004, 11:15 PM
Looks like someone needs to pick up a book and educate themselves! :D ...
Yeah.. like yourself.

Try reading up on the history surrounding the Berlin Wall. IE: One country split down the middle - one side chooses capitalism, the other socialism. One side had great wealth, prosperity and high living standards. The other had poverty, oppression and very low living standards. Which is which?

Subvert, that - commies.

[NovelGentry]

errrr... I think you mean "great wealth for the wealthy"

....ooohhh yeah and "prosperity and high living standards for the wealthy"

Arguing that capitalism ANYWHERE isn't susceptible to poverty is just stupid.

Halfway through reading this I thought you were trying to say that socialism was the good side, you started saying things about poverty and opression and I thought you were talking about the capitalist side (I'll admit I don't know much about Germany's case) but one thing I do know is that if there's any place where oppression is more rampant, it's in capitalism.

So I'm gonna have to go with a half and half... I think the capitalist side had greater amounts of wealthy people, a higher percentage of people in poverty than those who were wealthy enough to afford "high living standards", and far too much oppression. The socialist side in turn would have no wealthy people (afterall it is socialist), enough prosperity to sustain it's people (or they would have all died), probably their fair share of poverty too (although I'm not sure why if they were socialist), and no oppression.

[NovelGentry]

errrr... I think you mean "great wealth for the wealthy"

....ooohhh yeah and "prosperity and high living standards for the wealthy"

Arguing that capitalism ANYWHERE isn't susceptible to poverty is just stupid.

Halfway through reading this I thought you were trying to say that socialism was the good side, you started saying things about poverty and opression and I thought you were talking about the capitalist side (I'll admit I don't know much about Germany's case) but one thing I do know is that if there's any place where oppression is more rampant, it's in capitalism.

So I'm gonna have to go with a half and half... I think the capitalist side had greater amounts of wealthy people, a higher percentage of people in poverty than those who were wealthy enough to afford "high living standards", and far too much oppression. The socialist side in turn would have no wealthy people (afterall it is socialist), enough prosperity to sustain it's people (or they would have all died), probably their fair share of poverty too (although I'm not sure why if they were socialist), and no oppression.

[NovelGentry]

errrr... I think you mean "great wealth for the wealthy"

....ooohhh yeah and "prosperity and high living standards for the wealthy"

Arguing that capitalism ANYWHERE isn't susceptible to poverty is just stupid.

Halfway through reading this I thought you were trying to say that socialism was the good side, you started saying things about poverty and opression and I thought you were talking about the capitalist side (I'll admit I don't know much about Germany's case) but one thing I do know is that if there's any place where oppression is more rampant, it's in capitalism.

So I'm gonna have to go with a half and half... I think the capitalist side had greater amounts of wealthy people, a higher percentage of people in poverty than those who were wealthy enough to afford "high living standards", and far too much oppression. The socialist side in turn would have no wealthy people (afterall it is socialist), enough prosperity to sustain it's people (or they would have all died), probably their fair share of poverty too (although I'm not sure why if they were socialist), and no oppression.

[Nyder]

I think you should read up on the history of the Berlin Wall and why it was knocked down in 1989.

[Nyder]

I think you should read up on the history of the Berlin Wall and why it was knocked down in 1989.

[Nyder]

I think you should read up on the history of the Berlin Wall and why it was knocked down in 1989.

[NovelGentry]

I wasn't arguing about Germany's case, in fact, I said outright I didn't know much about it to begin with. My original statemenst were that of any capitalist nation. Once again, if you think that any capitalist nation is void of poverty you're just plain stupid. Thus my original points were aimed at capitalism in general.

You then gave me the option of which was which? Already having told yout hat I didn't know much about it I would have assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that I was guessing. The difference is I just made my guess a litte less black and white than you wanted it.

Realize, however, that it is not my problem that you're not willing to admit the pitfals of capitalism, just as it is not your problem that I'm not willing to admit the pitfalls of communism (even though I did say I would assume some poverty was there aswell).

Why did you ask the question if you didn't want an answer?

Lastly, how can you make something like oppression a feature of communism and not capitalism, apparently you you don't understand how capitalism works to begin with. Without exploitation of workers there is no way to make a profit, thus no way to increase capital, thus you can't really call yourself capitalist can you? If workers were paid equal (and thus fairly) to the cost of all that they produce, they would be able to buy all they produced and thus could be equally paid simply with the products they produce. Then what would the capitalist sell?

I will read up on the Berlin Wall -- but I guarantee you this, if you think that after I do I'm not going to be able to argue the same things, you have an overly blind view of the positivity of capitalism.

[NovelGentry]

I wasn't arguing about Germany's case, in fact, I said outright I didn't know much about it to begin with. My original statemenst were that of any capitalist nation. Once again, if you think that any capitalist nation is void of poverty you're just plain stupid. Thus my original points were aimed at capitalism in general.

You then gave me the option of which was which? Already having told yout hat I didn't know much about it I would have assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that I was guessing. The difference is I just made my guess a litte less black and white than you wanted it.

Realize, however, that it is not my problem that you're not willing to admit the pitfals of capitalism, just as it is not your problem that I'm not willing to admit the pitfalls of communism (even though I did say I would assume some poverty was there aswell).

Why did you ask the question if you didn't want an answer?

Lastly, how can you make something like oppression a feature of communism and not capitalism, apparently you you don't understand how capitalism works to begin with. Without exploitation of workers there is no way to make a profit, thus no way to increase capital, thus you can't really call yourself capitalist can you? If workers were paid equal (and thus fairly) to the cost of all that they produce, they would be able to buy all they produced and thus could be equally paid simply with the products they produce. Then what would the capitalist sell?

I will read up on the Berlin Wall -- but I guarantee you this, if you think that after I do I'm not going to be able to argue the same things, you have an overly blind view of the positivity of capitalism.

[NovelGentry]

I wasn't arguing about Germany's case, in fact, I said outright I didn't know much about it to begin with. My original statemenst were that of any capitalist nation. Once again, if you think that any capitalist nation is void of poverty you're just plain stupid. Thus my original points were aimed at capitalism in general.

You then gave me the option of which was which? Already having told yout hat I didn't know much about it I would have assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that I was guessing. The difference is I just made my guess a litte less black and white than you wanted it.

Realize, however, that it is not my problem that you're not willing to admit the pitfals of capitalism, just as it is not your problem that I'm not willing to admit the pitfalls of communism (even though I did say I would assume some poverty was there aswell).

Why did you ask the question if you didn't want an answer?

Lastly, how can you make something like oppression a feature of communism and not capitalism, apparently you you don't understand how capitalism works to begin with. Without exploitation of workers there is no way to make a profit, thus no way to increase capital, thus you can't really call yourself capitalist can you? If workers were paid equal (and thus fairly) to the cost of all that they produce, they would be able to buy all they produced and thus could be equally paid simply with the products they produce. Then what would the capitalist sell?

I will read up on the Berlin Wall -- but I guarantee you this, if you think that after I do I'm not going to be able to argue the same things, you have an overly blind view of the positivity of capitalism.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Quiet [email protected] 17 2004, 01:47 AM
Its Emiliano Zapata.not Zapatos :rolleyes:
Great post. I am well aware of how to spell Zapata's name, this was merely a typo in which I accidentally put an 'o' instead of an 'a'. Thankfully your profound brilliance saved the day by pointing out my dispicable failure to spell Emiliano Zapata's name correctly. Unfortunately your profound brilliance failed to see that the name was meant to be plural, as anyone who notices the mention of Che Guevaras, Osama bin Ladens, Pancho Villas would pick up rather quickly. Similarly you failed to criticize the incorrect use of an apostrophe when I said "Osama bin Laden's". If you're going to sling shit, do it right. But then again, those delighting themselves with dickwaving usually lack efficiency anyway. Keep it up with the one-liners, they will get you far. ;)

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Quiet [email protected] 17 2004, 01:47 AM
Its Emiliano Zapata.not Zapatos :rolleyes:
Great post. I am well aware of how to spell Zapata's name, this was merely a typo in which I accidentally put an 'o' instead of an 'a'. Thankfully your profound brilliance saved the day by pointing out my dispicable failure to spell Emiliano Zapata's name correctly. Unfortunately your profound brilliance failed to see that the name was meant to be plural, as anyone who notices the mention of Che Guevaras, Osama bin Ladens, Pancho Villas would pick up rather quickly. Similarly you failed to criticize the incorrect use of an apostrophe when I said "Osama bin Laden's". If you're going to sling shit, do it right. But then again, those delighting themselves with dickwaving usually lack efficiency anyway. Keep it up with the one-liners, they will get you far. ;)

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Quiet [email protected] 17 2004, 01:47 AM
Its Emiliano Zapata.not Zapatos :rolleyes:
Great post. I am well aware of how to spell Zapata's name, this was merely a typo in which I accidentally put an 'o' instead of an 'a'. Thankfully your profound brilliance saved the day by pointing out my dispicable failure to spell Emiliano Zapata's name correctly. Unfortunately your profound brilliance failed to see that the name was meant to be plural, as anyone who notices the mention of Che Guevaras, Osama bin Ladens, Pancho Villas would pick up rather quickly. Similarly you failed to criticize the incorrect use of an apostrophe when I said "Osama bin Laden's". If you're going to sling shit, do it right. But then again, those delighting themselves with dickwaving usually lack efficiency anyway. Keep it up with the one-liners, they will get you far. ;)

[Wiesty]

even if he did shoot unarmed men

to hell with em
if they dont have a weapon and are to stupid to get one or defend them selves in other means, they deserve to die
its a way
cant say ur tank jammed then wait for ur enemy to reload

[Wiesty]

even if he did shoot unarmed men

to hell with em
if they dont have a weapon and are to stupid to get one or defend them selves in other means, they deserve to die
its a way
cant say ur tank jammed then wait for ur enemy to reload

[Wiesty]

even if he did shoot unarmed men

to hell with em
if they dont have a weapon and are to stupid to get one or defend them selves in other means, they deserve to die
its a way
cant say ur tank jammed then wait for ur enemy to reload

[Lardlad95]

In my opinion the mark of a true hero is someone who inspires future heroes. Simply put Che Guevara does just that. I don't think anyone here considers him one of the great military thinkers of the 20th century, but I do consider him of the great heroes. And to say that he failed...how? He failed at what? If his aim was to simply over throw governments, then yeah I suppose he failed. But in my opinion his aim was to fight for the betterment of man kind. You can't fail at that, because it's a never ending struggle. He did a good deal to push that fight forward and that in my opinion is a sucess.

George washington lost more battles than he ever won. Hell he probably would have even lost the battle of YorkTown had it not been for the French Navy. Yet he isn't a failure is he?

You need to look past the events and look at the big picture. Some where on these boards is the next noam chomsky, the next Rosa Luxemburg, the Next Che Guevara. The only way Che Could have failed is if he was turned into a historical footnote. But no one cares about the Congo, no one cares about how to make a moltov cocktail rocket. What they do care about is struggling for a just cause. And if Che had done everything perfect it wouldn't have been a struggle. His failures and his sucesses are inspirational because despite having failed in a few endevors he didn't give up, he fought for his beliefs and through amny people today he still does.

[Lardlad95]

In my opinion the mark of a true hero is someone who inspires future heroes. Simply put Che Guevara does just that. I don't think anyone here considers him one of the great military thinkers of the 20th century, but I do consider him of the great heroes. And to say that he failed...how? He failed at what? If his aim was to simply over throw governments, then yeah I suppose he failed. But in my opinion his aim was to fight for the betterment of man kind. You can't fail at that, because it's a never ending struggle. He did a good deal to push that fight forward and that in my opinion is a sucess.

George washington lost more battles than he ever won. Hell he probably would have even lost the battle of YorkTown had it not been for the French Navy. Yet he isn't a failure is he?

You need to look past the events and look at the big picture. Some where on these boards is the next noam chomsky, the next Rosa Luxemburg, the Next Che Guevara. The only way Che Could have failed is if he was turned into a historical footnote. But no one cares about the Congo, no one cares about how to make a moltov cocktail rocket. What they do care about is struggling for a just cause. And if Che had done everything perfect it wouldn't have been a struggle. His failures and his sucesses are inspirational because despite having failed in a few endevors he didn't give up, he fought for his beliefs and through amny people today he still does.

[Lardlad95]

In my opinion the mark of a true hero is someone who inspires future heroes. Simply put Che Guevara does just that. I don't think anyone here considers him one of the great military thinkers of the 20th century, but I do consider him of the great heroes. And to say that he failed...how? He failed at what? If his aim was to simply over throw governments, then yeah I suppose he failed. But in my opinion his aim was to fight for the betterment of man kind. You can't fail at that, because it's a never ending struggle. He did a good deal to push that fight forward and that in my opinion is a sucess.

George washington lost more battles than he ever won. Hell he probably would have even lost the battle of YorkTown had it not been for the French Navy. Yet he isn't a failure is he?

You need to look past the events and look at the big picture. Some where on these boards is the next noam chomsky, the next Rosa Luxemburg, the Next Che Guevara. The only way Che Could have failed is if he was turned into a historical footnote. But no one cares about the Congo, no one cares about how to make a moltov cocktail rocket. What they do care about is struggling for a just cause. And if Che had done everything perfect it wouldn't have been a struggle. His failures and his sucesses are inspirational because despite having failed in a few endevors he didn't give up, he fought for his beliefs and through amny people today he still does.

[Nas]

they say "the good things someone does outweights the bad things"

ps: (in response to the post above) im tired when they said that the people on this community are the brightest minds and maybe the next Che Guevara and blah blah blah - get out of here , this community doesnt speak for the left in general

[Nas]

they say "the good things someone does outweights the bad things"

ps: (in response to the post above) im tired when they said that the people on this community are the brightest minds and maybe the next Che Guevara and blah blah blah - get out of here , this community doesnt speak for the left in general

[Nas]

they say "the good things someone does outweights the bad things"

ps: (in response to the post above) im tired when they said that the people on this community are the brightest minds and maybe the next Che Guevara and blah blah blah - get out of here , this community doesnt speak for the left in general

[Freedom Writer]

tigre (or someone) Tell me ONE man that won all the struggles in life that he had. Life is just winning and loosing, but I respect TRYING whatever the odds are.

[Freedom Writer]

tigre (or someone) Tell me ONE man that won all the struggles in life that he had. Life is just winning and loosing, but I respect TRYING whatever the odds are.

[Freedom Writer]

tigre (or someone) Tell me ONE man that won all the struggles in life that he had. Life is just winning and loosing, but I respect TRYING whatever the odds are.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 06:58 PM
they say "the good things someone does outweights the bad things"

ps: (in response to the post above) im tired when they said that the people on this community are the brightest minds and maybe the next Che Guevara and blah blah blah - get out of here , this community doesnt speak for the left in general
I wasn't being 100% literal my friend. What I meant was that Che may inspire alot of the future's hero's.

Also no one is saying that the good outweighs the bad, but we are saying is that in the context of history the bad isn't whats going to be relevant