Interpol: FARC files real

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Felch
I'd argue though that a regime that kills thousands combating an ideology which kills millions is the lesser of two evils. After all, if the one person you strangle is John Wayne Gacy, you just did the world a favor.

So in a war, you would say that the side that kills the most is the "evil" side?

[Patroklos]

Perhaps you forgot my profession, my pay has nothing to do with communists, unless of course their raping and pillaging and general destuction wrought upon hundreds of millions across the globe in the name of an already disproven 4th grade social studies experiment requiring people like me under arms to stem the chaos counts. Thanks, I guess.

You are not a revolutionary Che, you have absolutely no connection to FARC or any other group of leftits failures around the globe you worship except, well, that worship.

But feel free to put your money where your mouth is. Obvioulsy such an accomplished and dedicated revolutionary such as yourself would be welcomed with open arms by FARC. How thick is the belly these days? When was the last time you were at the range? I am sure they would laugh at your and then throw you into a cage until a capitalist rescued you or paid your way out.

You need to get over this delusion and become a grownup.

Again...

It is not "us" Che, you are not a commie revolutionary. You live in, work for, and benefit from the capitalist system you so despise. Everything you have, EVERYTHING, is because of capitalism. Enjoy.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So in a war, you would say that the side that kills the most is the "evil" side?

Huh? What? I didn't say anything like that at all.

Wars are different from governments killing their own people. A regime which kills 1% of its own people is worse than one which only kill .01% of its own people. That's my point.

In a war, the side that kills the most is usually called the "winning" side. Good and evil have more to do with the justice of the conflict, whether it's for defending yourself or pillaging your neighbors.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One, our movement does not usually kill millions. Two, we don't have any facts on hand how many Colombians die daily for the same reasons millions of Soviets, Chinese, or Cambodians died: lack of food. When you can't get a job or your job doesn't pay you enough and you starve to death, oh well, that's the market. When the employer is the government, it's evidence of how evil communism is. In other words, privatizing mass murder doesn't make the system or the government less guilty.

Starvation is quite uncommon in capitalist countries. I can think of exceptions (1840's Ireland is one), but by and large private charities and family networks keep people alive, even when times are tough and the government is unsympathetic. What capitalism does is give farmers the incentive to work hard and get the most out of their land.

I don't have figures for the numbers of people who've died of starvation under capitalism. I'm sure they exist, but they just don't exist in the millions like the did under communism. If it is a problem, I'm surprised Chavez hasn't made a big deal about it. He seemed more concerned with Venezuelan food being sold across the border than he was about the Colombian peasants who are all starving to death.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You need to get over this delusion and become a grownup.

Don't tell people to be a grownup. Show them how a grownup acts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Felch
Capitalists kill because we want to live in a nice big house, with a beautiful blond wife, and drive Beemers. Commies kill because they're jealous of our houses, women, and cars.

Even though you got the second part wrong you still make communists look better than you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What's wrong witha 45% turnout? That's perfectly fine.

This thread is a gem!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Felch
Wars are different from governments killing their own people. A regime which kills 1% of its own people is worse than one which only kill .01% of its own people. That's my point.

Well I noticed that you attached significance to the number killed. That's misplaced. Civil wars and wars between govenments aren't as different as you claim. Also, the fact that other communists have killed for different reasons doesn't mean that all communists kill so for those stated reasons.

[Patroklos]

Don't tell people to be a grownup. Show them how a grownup acts.

You are correct, which is why I haven't joined or praised FARC every day of my life

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious




This thread is a gem!

That's sort of silly to complain about. Kuci is right, in the context of the discussion. 45% voter turnout does not, in fact, scream "OMG nasty oppressive government!" 100% turnout with 99.9% voting for one side does.

That is not to say that I'm defending the Columbian government. Frankly, I know very little about it. Perhaps it is repressive and kills lots of its own people. But the voter turnout doesn't seem to correlate well with other such places. 45% turnout = apathy. You generally get that when people are complacent. In other words, places that are doing fairly well.

-Arrian

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's sort of silly to complain about. Kuci is right, in the context of the discussion. 45% voter turnout does not, in fact, scream "OMG nasty oppressive government!" 100% turnout with 99.9% voting for one side does.

That is not to say that I'm defending the Columbian government. Frankly, I know very little about it. Perhaps it is repressive and kills lots of its own people. But the voter turnout doesn't seem to correlate well with other such places. 45% turnout = apathy. You generally get that when people are complacent. In other words, places that are doing fairly well.

-Arrian

I don't vote, and I'm far from accepting of my government. I do not believe that voting is effective. If you don't think there are others like me you haven't talked to many non-voters.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't vote, and I'm far from accepting of my government. I do not believe that voting is effective. If you don't think there are others like me you haven't talked to many non-voters.

Taking your unique circumstances and applying them to 55% of Colombia is silly.

I don't usually vote because I just don't care that much. I figure whoever wins will be more or less competent, and probably won't go on a killing spree. Most people who don't vote are apathetic as well.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't vote, and I'm far from accepting of my government. I do not believe that voting is effective. If you don't think there are others like me you haven't talked to many non-voters.

Fair enough - some people don't vote out of apathy, some people don't vote out of despair (or rejection).

I don't know how that breaks down in Columbia.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Arrian
45% turnout = apathy. You generally get that when people are complacent. In other words, places that are doing fairly well.

-Arrian

Apathy also occurs, as noted by Kid, when you feel there's nothing you can do to change the situation. Most of the people I know who don't vote do so because they feel that they cannot change anything by voting, not because they're happy with the way things are or because they just don't care (although some folks stop carrying because they feel they don't make a difference, so why bother . . . vicious circle).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch
Starvation is quite uncommon in capitalist countries.

Actually, starvation is quite common in the capitalist world, unless you define capitalism so narrowly that only the imperialist states are capitalist. That would be like saying that no one has to work under capitalism, and defining people as only capitalists.

With the exceptions of Cuba and North Korea, every country in the world is capitalist, even those led by Communist Parties. So when twelve million children a year in the Third World die from starvation and disease (much disease being a function of malnutrition, but not discounting other vectors), that's on capitalism's head. Those children are allowed to die when they could be saved, just as the Soviets and Chinese allowed millions to starve when they could have been saved. The main difference is the decision to let those people die is privatized in the capitalist system, whereas it was made by the government in the socialist system.

It's also important to note that although 1/3rd the world's population was at one time in the socialist system (albeit, a dictatorial and bureaucratically deformed version of such) there were only six noteworthy famines: the USSR 1922-3, the USSR 1932-4, the PRC 1959-61, Democratic Kampuchea 1979, Ethiopia 1984 (I would note here, however, that while Ethiopia was ruled by a communist party, it never abolished capitalism, but I include it anyway), and North Korea just recently. Maybe as many as thirty million human beings perished due to stupidity, bureaucracy, and malevolence, but 2/3rds of those were in China (we think, but there are no accurate figures--as the current government had every reason to fudge the numbers to discredit Mao).

Thirty millions is an unimaginable number, (it's all of California) but it's only three years of children's unnecessary death in the capitalist 3rd World. That doesn't even bring in all the other factors that caused unnecessary premature death.