Che Obama?

Che Guevara Flags in Obama's Houston Office
Little Green Footballs ^ | Feb 11, 2008

Posted on 02/12/2008 6:53:45 AM PST by 3AngelaD

Barack Obama won’t wear an American flag on his lapel, but on the wall of his Houston campaign office: a Cuban flag with a picture of Communist mass murderer Che Guevara.

Would it have been OK if he had appeared in front of a picture of American mass murderer George W. Bush?

How many have died of political / military violence in Iraq since Bush invaded there almost 5 years ago?

ziggy wrote:Would it have been OK if he had appeared in front of a picture of American mass murderer George W. Bush?

How many have died of political / military violence in Iraq since Bush invaded there almost 5 years ago?

How many jihadists have died since Bush's invasion? Not enough! How many died under Saddam Barrack Hussein? Why didn't you condemn his mass murders; and, why weren't you willing to stop his mass murders?

Ziggy,

I'm not even sure what to say to you about this. Are you implying that the actions of GWB make Che Guevera less of a monster?

Guevera was a medical doctor, and instead of using his skills and training to heal the sick he decided to be a violent and ruthless militant.

Is this anything but typical comments from Ziggy???

Keli wrote:How many jihadists have died since Bush's invasion? Not enough! How many died under Saddam Barrack Hussein? Why didn't you condemn his mass murders; and, why weren't you willing to stop his mass murders?

Saddam's mass murders were done while he was an American ally. By 2003 America had allowed him to kill off all of his threatening political enemies- and the U.S. had even furnished him the armaments to do it.

In 1984 Donald Rumsfeld was even sent to Baghdad to assure Saddam that, as bad as he had been, that the U.S. was still an ally and a dependable supporter of his regime.

So why weren't YOU willing to condemn and stop his mass murders- back when he was actually doing them? Because it would have been un-American and un-patriotic to criticize an unabashedly murderous American ally, right.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I'm not even sure what to say to you about this. Are you implying that the actions of GWB make Che Guevera less of a monster?

No, but I am suggesting that Keli's outrage is not proportional to how murderous someone or other may have been- but to how near or far that someone or other is to being the God of Keli's current political fad.

I vote for Ziggy as President of the United States because "he knows best" how to handle ..... and what must be done ....... concerning any and all "situations" that involve or affect America and the people living here.

Ziggy solves each "problem", ..... one at a time and makes "fast n' quick" decisions to effect said ......... and he doesn't confuse his "decision making" by considering any "negative possibilities" or "ramifications" that might result from his "decisions".

That is not necessary because if such occurs, ...... they are "new problems" .... and he will handle them "likewise", ........ one at a time.

Vote for Ziggy for President.

Iffen ya want a better world to live in.

.

Sorry Sam, but I will not seek and I will not accept the nomination of my party as your president.

ziggy wrote:

Keli wrote:How many jihadists have died since Bush's invasion? Not enough! How many died under Saddam Barrack Hussein? Why didn't you condemn his mass murders; and, why weren't you willing to stop his mass murders?

Saddam's mass murders were done while he was an American ally. By 2003 America had allowed him to kill off all of his threatening political enemies- and the U.S. had even furnished him the armaments to do it.

In 1984 Donald Rumsfeld was even sent to Baghdad to assure Saddam that, as bad as he had been, that the U.S. was still an ally and a dependable supporter of his regime.

So why weren't YOU willing to condemn and stop his mass murders- back when he was actually doing them? Because it would have been un-American and un-patriotic to criticize an unabashedly murderous American ally, right.

Hey Keli,

Cricket .........................

Cricket ............................

What is it about students, especially, at very expensive colleges funded by captains of bourgeois industry, to love Mao and Che, who as their second order of business would have them shot?

BTW, Ziggy, I direct you to the book "Contra Toda Esperanza" for a telling of what it was like to follow with Casto at the beginning and then to prove not "orthodox."

Well Mike, I am not Castro's keeper. But I do like to read.

Do you know what it was like, back about 1954-55 maybe, to follow Cuban strong man Batista, and then to prove not "orthodox."?

And there seem to be a few people right here on this forum who think that criticims of an American Commander-In-Chief's decisions to go to war should be considered treasonous.

ziggy wrote:Well Mike, I am not Castro's keeper. But I do like to read.

Do you know what it was like, back about 1954-55 maybe, to follow Cuban strong man Batista, and then to prove not "orthodox."?

And there seem to be a few people right here on this forum who think that criticims of an American Commander-In-Chief's decisions to go to war should be considered treasonous.

Cuba replaced one murderous dictator with another.

Zig,

Really? Who is suggesting that we castigate people against the war?

I do recommend the read, particularly if you can find it in English. My copy is in Spanish.

I get the sense that if we counted the dead bodies we would find that Batista was an amateur in the dealings of death compared to Fidel, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. Are you aware of reliable numbers?

ziggy wrote:And there seem to be a few people right here on this forum who think that criticims of an American Commander-In-Chief's decisions to go to war should be considered treasonous.

Care to explain what you are referring to in the above?

.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:And there seem to be a few people right here on this forum who think that criticims of an American Commander-In-Chief's decisions to go to war should be considered treasonous.

Care to explain what you are referring to in the above?

.

If it doesn't apply to you, don't worry about it.

Long live Jane Fonda and the other Vietnam War protestors- especially those who went to prison rather than submit to Lyndon Johnson's draft.

Keli wrote:Cuba replaced one murderous dictator with another.

That was my point, precisely.

But the "Little Havana" communities of Florida would have us believe that Batista was a saint. But the problem a lot of them had with Castro wasn't that he was a murderous dictator. They and their ancestors were OK with the murderous dictator Batista as long as he left their lucrative gambling and other nefarious emterprises alone. For a lot of them Castro's real sin was nationalization of their financial holdings.

Keli wrote:Cuba replaced one murderous dictator with another.

That was my point, precisely.

But the "Little Havana" communities of Florida would apparently have us believe that Batista was a saint. But the problem a lot of them had with Castro wasn't that he was a murderous dictator. They and their ancestors were OK with the murderous dictator Batista as long as he left their lucrative gambling and other nefarious emterprises alone.

For a lot of them Castro's real sin was nationalization of their financial holdings. If he had allowed "business as usual" in the bordellos, casinos and slums of Havana, the operators of those enterprises would not have cared how murderous he was, nor how illiterate and otherwise unhealthy the average Cuban was.

Keli wrote:Che Guevara Flags in Obama's Houston Office
Little Green Footballs ^ | Feb 11, 2008

It is not even an official Obama campaign office- just a place where some volunteers hang out. It would be akin to some unofficial Huckabee or McCain hangout where volunteers have an office adorned with a Confederate Rebel flag and KKK memorabelia- such as sheets and nooses.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/chavez.asp

Zig,

I do not doubt that Batista was a bad man (just as I do not doubt that the Czars had glaring faults as well.) I'm just looking for a sense of proportion here, which is why I ask about numbers.

Similarly, I have no objection to the reality that many innocent people have suffered because of the US war in Iraq. However, I must take umbrage at those who would make a moral equivalence between Bush, who, misguided though he may be, is not out to kill people because of their political affiliation or ethnicity, and Saddam Hussein or Ossama.

Also, we are here speaking openly. Had you done that in Havana in 1976, or Berlin in 1943, or Moscow in 1955, or China during the Great Leap Forward, or in Pol Pot's "Killing Fields," or near Idi Amin, you would not last until lunch time. There just isn't a fair equivalence here, Zig.

And I don't think the equivalence helps your position. A great many people can be convinced not only to oppose future preemptive wars but any candidate who would support them, who might be turned off with such rhetoric.

I could also be wrong, just about the Batista numbers. Any thoughts?

SheikBen wrote:Zig,

I get the sense that if we counted the dead bodies we would find that Batista was an amateur in the dealings of death compared to Fidel, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. Are you aware of reliable numbers?

Now Mike, I don't think so.

Under Batista, Cuba became profitable for American business and organized crime. Havana became the "Latin Las Vegas," a playground of choice for wealthy gamblers, and very little was said about democracy, or the rights of the average Cuban. Opposition was swiftly and violently crushed, and many began to fear the new government.

Just over a year after Batista's second coup, a small group of revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro attacked the Moncada Army Barracks in Santiago on July 26, 1953. The attack failed, and Batista sent General Martin Tamayo, the military commander of the district, a note ordering him to "kill ten rebels for every soldier killed" in the attack. This Presidential order was quickly dubbed the "ten-for-one" law. Tamayo carried out his order, murdering fifty-nine additional rebels (it would have taken 190 deaths to fulfill Batista's request).

By late 1955 student riots and anti-Batista demonstration had become frequent. These were dealt with in the violent manner his military police had come to represent. Students attempting to march from the University of Havana were stopped and beaten by the police, ..............

Instead of loosening his grip, Batista suspended constitutional guarantees and established tighter censorship of the media. His military police would patrol the streets and pick up anyone suspected of insurrection. By the end of 1955 they had grown more prone to violent acts of brutality and torture, with no fear of legal repercussions.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm

Well, sure Sam, but your anecdote (and even 59 dead insurgents) do not speak to whether Castro and Batista can really be compared favorably.