My, Wasn't Che a Cuddly Fellow.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I was nosing around after stuff on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which I only knew from a disparaging mention in a William F. Buckley column many years ago.

Aside from discovering that the New Orleans chapter of this unhappy organization featured a guy named Lee Harvey Oswald, there's also this about Che Guevara's career. Since this is not at all a current event, it's going here.

[DanaC]

Well. He kind of sounds a little like you Urbane. He deems the Imperialists worthy of extermination and deserving of no rest; you have the same attitude to 'unfreedom' and those who run their countries in ways you do not approve of.

Incidentally, how many times did America try to assassinate Fidel? This was a two way street.

[TheMercenary]

I believe they recorded 638 suggestions. As I can recall there was a number of real attempts but most failed badly.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

But of course, DanaC: I am, after all, a moral being, and oppression and misgovernment are quite immoral, and ought not to be. Is this anything other than self-evident?

[DanaC]

And for the other side (e.g Che) they also believe themselves to be moral beings and see imperialism as immoral and 'ought not to be'.

[Cicero]

lol!!!

Urbane is an enemy of the United States...So was Lincoln. yep...Did you know that Lincoln was assassinated by his self and was threatening to blow up Canada? Me either. Because I just made that up.


Long story long....I think the posted article is a bunch of "hooey". If you believe that....

Sidenote: The author of the article is also a prose-poet so he is qualified as a historian.

[richlevy]

Che wasn't the first leader to plan a terror campaign in the United States.

Orders of George Washington to General John Sullivan, at Head-Quarters May 31, 1779 The Expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians, with their associates and adherents. The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements, and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more. I would recommend, that some post in the center of the Indian Country, should be occupied with all expedition, with a sufficient quantity of provisions whence parties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed. But you will not by any means listen to any overture of peace before the total ruinment of their settlements is effected. Our future security will be in their inability to injure us and in the terror with which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire them.

FYI, Washington had a reason to do this. The Iroquois sided with the British. However, he did deliberately include civilians as casualties through direct action or starvation.

Brutality towards an enemy population is not a new process or a tactic used by only those we dislike.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Brutality towards an enemy population is not a new process or a tactic used by only those we dislike.

True. It is used against those we dislike. Kind of a rule of thumb. And if that pisses them off, they are combative and that much more a threat. Awesome.

Circular illogic.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

And for the other side (e.g Che) they also believe themselves to be moral beings and see imperialism as immoral and 'ought not to be'.

DanaC, that is the second time in the last thirty days you've tried to sell me a crap idea you're completely sold on yourself: that of moral equivalence. With a Communist??? -- were you thinking when you wrote?? The kindest interpretation is you're being the advocatus diaboli.

When you finally understand there is no moral equivalence whatsoever between the partisans of freedom (me -- maybe, possibly, you; but I'll say it doesn't look much like it) and the partisans of unfreedom in the form of excessive government, then you will have gained much more wisdom than you show now.

Leftism always peddles these crap ideas -- that Big Government will solve social problems better than Small, that slavemongers have moral equivalence with the free peoples who don't want slavemongers running anything, let alone the lives of them and theirs, and on and on in examples almost too numerous to. It'd take a book, and many have been written.

This is why I'm not a leftist. Leftists, from what I can see, suffer mental dysfunctions that make them choose the worse choices. I'm just too smart to buy what they're selling. Been that way all my life, and God, there's a howling from the hard Left around here when I mention it. Let 'em; the Left as a whole is too stupid for me, and stupid ideas like "moral equivalency" remind me of just how poor the Left's mental battery really is. You in particular, Dana, lack the ideas and the intellectual horsepower to persuade me away from the path I understand to be right, when it comes to politics. I'm not even sure you understand how little you have to believe in. And yes, I think it's a pity. You might have done better.

You still could -- while there's life, there's hope -- but it will take a real epiphany.

[Griff]

I disagree with Dana on many things, but I find her commentary to be quite intelligent and honest. What you fail to see is that your passion for militarism carries the seed of totalitarianism. War-making is a big government solution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The seed and a lot of fertilizer.

[DanaC]

You in particular, Dana, lack the ideas and the intellectual horsepower to persuade me away from the path I understand to be right, when it comes to politics.

Oh Urbane, you've cut me to the quick!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Griff, just how in hell do you expect to replace the misgovernment of totalitarianism, which you despise, with the blessings of libertarianism?

Have you given it any thought? Are you about to? Why do you think I'm asking?

Totalitarians are famous for never responding to a good example. They respond much more favorably to well directed bullets. In the middle and in the end, the libertarians will have to end the fascists in violence. We really wouldn't want to keep any unreconstructed totalitarians around anyway.

Call me a fanatic if that's the only damn thing you can do about anything -- that's guaranteed not to impress anyone with your advocacy of liberty. I just reckon I know who's the more motivated, and who understands man-unkind the better.

Note, too, the remarkable poverty of DanaC's response. Hey, if that's modern socialism, I'd walk away from it towards something embodying more hope. (I'm a typical American; we do that.)

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Griff, just how in hell do you expect to replace the misgovernment of totalitarianism, which you despise, with the blessings of libertarianism?

First, we reduce it at home. That means no more voting for national Republican candidates until a new generation, which believes in Constitutional government, develops. The Democrats can be counted on to reduce military spending, which in this time of no truly serious foreign military threats makes sense. Americans can begin to focus on America again. Once Republicans remember their past antipathy for the Unitary Executive, we can support them in office and roll back whatever indignities the Democrats work in the mean time.

Having left the muslim world to stew in its own madness while getting our house back in order, we can only hope they take the hint. If they don't care enough to overthrow their own little tyrants, it is none of our damn business.

[TheMercenary]

That form of isolationism would never work Griff, I like the sounds of it but practically it would not work. In our day and age of globalism we could not ignore previous treaties and business relationships with companies that keep our economy grinding forward. The costs would be to high.