Che-bama?

Hey Che, how many Obama supporters did you sign up today?

This pic of a Houston-based Obama group originates with a Fox affiliate broadcast. (See the video here--as a real Che hater, I swear to Raul Castro that the talking dog in the car dealership ad right before the vid is far scarier than this mashup of the Cuban flag).

It's making the round of right-wing websites ranging from Captain's Quarters (aye, aye, Cap'n Ed!) to National Review to Newsbusters.

Sadly, the Fox affiliate has robbed most of the juice from this one by noting on its website: "The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."

Hit & Runners, what say you? Righteous commie outrage or phoney right-wing fooferaw?

reason on Che

Update: NRO's Jim Geraghty is reporting that the Obama campaign has stressed this rag not a flag aint' in an "official" office (scare quotes are NRO's) and the candidate's people have called the flag "inappropriate," which moves Geraghty to write, "I'm mildly surprised that Team Obama called the Che flag, 'inappropriate' instead of merely 'controversial' or some milquetoast term."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I could never decide what's more contemptible - wearing Che t-shirts, or reading Mao's little red book in public, making sure everyone can see just what the book is. What say you, pinko-haters?

  • ||

    I hate those biased bastards at Fox. Hillary and Obama get all the breaks from them.

  • ||

    Both. The Republicans are making a mountain of a molehill - since when are leftist fans of mass murderers news?

  • Episiarch||

    Righteous commie outrage or phoney right-wing fooferaw?

    1. It's proof that Obama is a communist who will sell our children's organs for dog food.

    -or-

    2. It's proof that some of Obama's supporters are morons who think a mass murderer and hater of gays is sexy symbol of revolution.

    You choose.

  • Che killed people, you trendy ||

    If I had to make a call on this, I'd bet that it's a false flag op from the 'tards on the (so called) right, (what's left of) the GOP.

  • highnumber||

    I could never decide what's more contemptible - wearing Che t-shirts, or reading Mao's little red book in public...

    I question someone's judgment if he or she finds someone's choice of t shirt or reading material worthy of contempt.

  • Chuck||

    Episiarch--

    While I would go with (2), others who wish to be consistent with their guilt-by-association treatment of Ron Paul are going to be obliged to choose (1).

    Now we need to have a big debate over whether Obama should return any donations received from known Che-lovers or not.

  • ||

    Comparable to a group of Republican volunteers with a rebel flag in their clubhouse; worthy of eye-rolling, can be denounced on principle, but any outrage is manufactured.

  • ||

    If the left finally denounces Che, the Dems would exceed my expectations.

  • che paul||

    and then there's this...

  • ||

    The Che shirts are worse, Warty. I would read Mao's book for educational purposes and I wouldn't care who saw me reading it. I'm not a communist, but I'm still interested in what he wrote. (Know thyne enemy.)

    Che t-shirts are not for any educational purpose. They just show ignorance and support for a murderer.

  • shecky||

    I'm as outraged as when I saw Ron Paul banners on the Stormfront site.

  • Drew||

    My polite indignation knows no bounds!

  • ||

    I question someone's judgment if he or she finds someone's choice of t shirt or reading material worthy of contempt.

    Oh, I dunno. Ostentatious displays of solidarity with mass-murdering thugs are always worthy of contempt.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    I think it indicates the similarity in the appeal of Che's and Obama's cults of personality to young people today. Both are handsome dark skinned men who are powerful and fiery orators, who go on and on about about Revolution (change). Most people don't understand Che beyond that picture and what they think it represents, and most people don't understand Obama beyond his great public image.

    To crucify Obama supporters for supporting Che means crucifying them for ignorance of the substance of Che's legacy, and that is worth pointing out. Where is the substance behind this campaign?

  • Scott||

    I'm as outraged as when I saw Ron Paul banners on the Stormfront site.

    As you should be, Ron Paul's platform has nothing to do with your Stromfront statist views.

  • ||

    I would read Mao's book for educational purposes and I wouldn't care who saw me reading it.

    Maybe true, but the guy who was reading it seemed to be displaying it as ostentatiously as he possibly could. He later got banned from campus for heckling the ROTC kids, calling them baby killers and such.

    He also had a huge Danzig tattoo. Now I can't rock out to Danzig without remembering his douchery. Bastard.

  • ||

    Capital-R "Revolution" and American politicians using the slogan "change" when running against the incumbent party are similar enough to stand in for each other in that sentence.

    Sure they are.

  • Outraged dude||

    I'M OUTRAGED. OH MY GOD. [Who is this Che guy? Some kind of acid rock the kids like? What?] THIS IS THE WORST ACT OF TREASON IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES UNTIL SOMETHING BETTER COMES ALONG NEXT WEEK!!!1

  • ||

    The fact there is zero Obama stuff in the picture is kind of strange. Basically, the only evidence that this is what Fox says it is, is Fox. The three women in the picture would suggest a Clinton office ;-) Seriously, white women working for Obama is bad news for Hillary.

  • ||

    He was a Maoist calling someone else baby killers? WTF? Hypocrit.

  • Ramsey||

    Glen "If I find out he's over here, I'm gonna be eating my cereal out of the bottom of your f***ing skull!" Danzig?

    I am in the people republic of Madison, and there is actually a bit of backlash against blind support of Che, which surprises me.

  • ||

    Supporters of a presidential candidate are naive buffoons? Seems like I've heard that story before.

    Honestly, the Che flag reminds me more of stupid frat boys trying to buy rebellion rather than an embrace of killing people and taking their goods. That Che flag says, "I went to a class in latin american history, baby, now let's shoot some skeet."

  • Episiarch||

    "Can you make the blood go up the walls?"

    That Che flag says, "I went to a class in latin american history, baby, now let's shoot some skeet."

    Che strikes me more as a trap shooter. In skeet it's too easy to let one get away.

  • adrian||

    obama is a socialist, this makes perfect sense.

    also, reading mein kampf is not the same as wearing a hitler t-shirt.

    Drink!

  • ||

    It goes to show how critical it is to get to people when they're young. Teenagers reading Rand in my high school was as common Che shirts. I imagine very few of either group changed their minds unless they had a particularly effective college professor.

  • Wizzie||

    Nobody is responsible for more American deaths than the followers of the Confederacy, yet righties don't complain about waving that flag.

  • Rigoberto||

    Screw these morons for defacing my country's flag. This makes me sick.

  • ||

    I never saw anyone wearing a Che shirt reading Rand in my high school. I think I wouldn't have understood that irony at the time because I didn't have a clue what either was about.

  • ||

    Well how about this poster at CPAC? The partisan hacks in both parties are capable of douchebaggery.

  • ||

    It was murderer, not baby killer.

    CWRU claims to be kicking me off campus for yelling "murderer" at a US solider at an anti-war rally. First of all over a thousand Iraqis have just been killed in Fallujah by the US military, so why wouldn't I call someone who is proud to be part of this a "murderer?"

    What a clown. I wonder if he's still as dumb 4 years later.

  • ||

    "I think it indicates the similarity in the appeal of Che's and Obama's cults of personality to young people today. Both are handsome dark skinned men who are powerful and fiery orators, who go on and on about about Revolution (change)." (Stephen)

    Except Obama hasn't summarily executed anyone by shooting them in the head.

  • ||

    I don't think most people who buy the Che stuff even know who he was. Its more ignorance than commie-loving.

  • shecky||

    Cesar:
    I thought this one was pretty whacked.

  • ||

    Che wasn't "dark skinned". He was from Argentina, the whitest, most European nation in the western hemisphere.

  • ||

    Cesar, you may be right, but if the like the shirt enough to buy it, I wouldn't be surprised if they find out what he was about and go along with it becuase they like the shirt...and it recognizes sticking it to the Man, and that's always in style.

    Libertarians need a cool shirt.

  • shecky||

    Ron Paul's platform has nothing to do with your Stromfront statist views.

    Lots or things to be outraged by at Stormfront, but their statist views are among the last among them.

  • neil||

    I might guess 'false flag' operation just because it's hard to believe anybody could be that stupid. But then again, one should never refuse to believe something on that basis.

  • Episiarch||

    I don't think most people who buy the Che stuff even know who he was.

    Though this is sadly true, you'd hope people would do a tiny, tiny bit of research. Makes for a great moron indicator, though.

    "Hey, nice to meet...is that a Che shirt? Are you wearing it ironically? No?"

  • ||

    "Argentina, the whitest, most European nation in the western hemisphere."

    Did Canada move?

  • ||

    In general, I agree with Cesar and Lamar - a Che t-shirts most commonly means "I own a Rage Against the Machine album."

    But in this case, it's on a Cuban flag. That's a bit more messed up.

  • ||

    Nick, yes, its whiter than Canada. The native population was wiped out even more thoroughly than in North America, and they never had slavery on a large scale.

  • ||

    That picture looks like a community college professor going over a lesson plan with her TAs. Ann Althouse, perhaps?

    It's undoubtedly part of the vast RightWingNoiseMachine's devilishly devious conspiracy to tip the Democratic nomination to (unelectable) Hillary in order to ensure the implementation of Huckabee's theocratic reign, which will culminate in the Rapture.

    How this will benefit Bill Kristol, I am unqualified to surmise.

  • Peter||

    Much as I'm loath to admit it, there are democrats, even hard-core leftists who denounce communism and fellows like Che, Castro, and the rest of the rogues gallery of socialist totalitarians. I'd argue that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one such democrat - a lone voice within the party machinery against Hillary at the time of her health care proposal (phase one).

    Anyway, it strikes me that Obama, while he is certainly a liberal, realizes that these men, along with their ideology are tyrants and that they took the welfare state to an extreme even a liberal can recognize as oppressive. It's been my experience that the people most likely to extol the alleged virtues of communist madmen are insulated, provincial, urban, privileged, quasi-intellectual white westerners. Obama is none of the above, though "western" might apply loosely. And having spent good time at the University of Chicago, where his economic adviser was a fixture in the department that produced (gasp) Milton Friedman, I'd have a hard time accepting the idea that he might give serious credence to "applied Marxism".

  • ||

    Ostentatious displays of solidarity with mass-murdering thugs are always worthy of contempt.

    BINGO

  • Brutum Fulmen||

    Nick: Shouldn't we be referred to as "Hitters & Runners"? Or "Hit-&-Run-ers"? I'm quite unsatisfied with "Hit & Runners"

  • ||

    Young, ignorant and immature folks think that Obama and Che are both cool. I'm not surprised and nobody else should be. It's not part of the official campaign, so it's much ado about nothing.

    BTW, bought a litlle red book in Hong Kong. Read some of it too. I read the gay weekly, Between the Lines and the African American Michigan Citizen here in Detroit.

    I am no gay, black or a communist. I've read the Bible too.

  • Episiarch||

    Argentinians are all of Spanish and Italian descent with some Nazis thrown in. They're pretty white.

    They are also the most annoying Spanish speakers because they never shut up and use all kinds of poetic flourishes.

  • ChrisO||

    Che was nothing more than a conspiracy by Big Beret to create endless decades' worth of new customers.

  • dhex||

    hey foxy newsy
    goin' my way?

    since we're going for guilt by association, i've heard most democrats and republicans are idiots.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, a poster of Andrew Jackson, our genocidiest president, whose death toll vastly exceeds Che's, in any Democratic office wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

  • ||

    Canada is Irish, Scottish, English, and French. Doesn't get much whiter than that. The natives are few and at the margins, and there has been a recent influx of third worlders, just like Europe.

    I'd say this battle is headed for overtime....

  • ||

    Joe, its good to know theres one Democratic who doesn't like Andy the Bastard. The Dem pols down here never fail to mention him in a speech it seems.

    I wish his mug would be taken of the $20 and be replaced with John Adams.

  • Episiarch||

    Meanwhile, a poster of Andrew Jackson, our genocidiest president, whose death toll vastly exceeds Che's, in any Democratic office wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

    Don't forget that 20 in your pocket, joe--ha ha, guilt by association!

  • ||

    Meanwhile, a poster of Andrew Jackson, our genocidiest president,

    I hope some lewrockwell.com folks show up here soon.

    LINCOLN GRAGGGH GLAK GRARRR

  • ||

    Very true, joe. I can't stand that villainous fuckwad either. I don't carry cash because of him. Well, that's not really why, but it sounds good, right?

  • ||

    Cesar,

    You just gave me a great idea: give Lincoln the $20, so we can get rid of the penny. That way, the dollar coin is still available for Washington when we get rid of the dollar bill.

  • ||

    John Adams of Alien & Sedition Acts fame?

  • Episiarch||

    Canada is Irish, Scottish, English, and French. Doesn't get much whiter than that.

    Antarctica is pretty white. The only non-white guys were Childs and Nauls, and McReady and Blair were very white.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    I hear they took his name off the "Jefferson-Jackson Dinner" entirely in Minnesota.

    Good for them. DFL Rulez!

  • ||

    Lincoln is already on the $5 though.

    John Adams really never got a fair shake in any kind of monument or on coins, so he should get it.

    Nick-

    Until the immigrant influx into Canada in recent years, Argentina and Canada might have been tied in whitness. But you don't find any Vancouvers in Argentina. Probably never will, either, since they make a big deal about being "European".

  • ||

    I wish his mug would be taken of the $20 and be replaced with John Adams.

    John "Alien and Sedition" Adams?

  • ||

    /yawn

  • ||

    John Adams of Alien & Sedition Acts fame?



    Yeah, but he could have started a war with France to his political advantage and didn't for the good of the country. Something some people up in Washington could learn from.

  • ||

    Ah crap! Nick beat me to it.

  • highnumber||

    I ought to buy a Che t shirt in case I ever go to a libertarian meeting. It would probably be a quick way to separate the hysterical blowhards from the thoughtful activists.

  • ||

    I'm surprised enemies of America haven't resorted to putting presidential assassins on their money. The John Wilkes Booth Rial? Oswald Won?

  • ||

    You just gave me a great idea: give Lincoln the $20, so we can get rid of the penny. That way, the dollar coin is still available for Washington when we get rid of the dollar bill.

    Huzzah, Huzzah! The penny and the one dollar bill should have been retired long ago.

  • ||

    Unless Obama publicly denounces this, I can never even consider voting for him. (As if his most recent speech on Saturday, uncharacteristically rife with partisan bashing, nanny-state entitlement programs and anti-market rhetoric wasn't bad enough...)

    Ignorance to what che really was is no excuse, the same way no one should be excused for putting up the likeness of Heinrich Himmler or Kang Kek Ieu on one's wall.

  • Episiarch||

    Leon Czolgosz Bolívar fuerte?

  • ||

    The flag does seem out of place for an office of political volunteers but then again, I remember that while I worked at a local labor union in Colorado (Local 105) there was a "Che" poster hanging in the office. Honestly, people didnt think much of it, except as maybe of symbol of rebellion. In fact, most of the workers we represented were Mexican and most probably couldnt tell you who Che was or what he did.

  • highnumber||

    Even better: Che on the front and Pinochet on the back, or vice versa.

  • ||

    I ought to buy a Che t shirt in case I ever go to a libertarian meeting. It would probably be a quick way to separate the hysterical blowhards from the thoughtful activists.

    Did you mean "separate the paleos from the cosmos"?

  • ||

    John Adams of Alien & Sedition Acts fame?

    John Adama of Peacefully Ceding His Office Upon Losing the Election, When He Could Have Called Armed Men Into the Streets fame.

    Lincoln is already on the $5 though. D'oh!

  • Les||

    Much as I'm loath to admit it, there are democrats, even hard-core leftists who denounce communism and fellows like Che, Castro, and the rest of the rogues gallery of socialist totalitarians. I'd argue that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one such democrat...

    Which is funny, because it was Moynihan's anti-communism which inspired him to ignore U.N. sanctions and covertly ship weapons to Suharto's Indonesia while it was slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians in East Timor.

    It's an all-too common philosophy, really:

    communist atrocity = bad!
    anti-communist atrocity = good!

  • ||

    "a study conducted by the Genetic Department of the University of Buenos Aires,[46] and confirmed by other research studies,[47] estimated that 56% of the Argentine population had at least one Amerindian ancestor on either the paternal or maternal lineages and 10% of the population had Amerindian ancestors on both lineages."

    Having said that, census numbers from both countries show Canada to be identified as 83% white while Argentina estimates anywhere from 84-97%, depending on who you ask.

    All things considered, they're both really friggin white!

  • Episiarch||

    Adama of Peacefully Ceding His Office Upon Losing the Election, When He Could Have Called Armed Men Into the Streets fame.

    Admiral Adama never challenged Laura Roslin for the Colonial Presidency, joe.

  • highnumber||

    Did you mean "separate the paleos from the cosmos"?

    Same diff!


    *ducks*

    Joke! It's a joke!
    In every part of every movement there's people who enjoy getting worked up more than anything else. It's always a good thing to tweak them so it's clear who they are.

  • Edward||

    "I ought to buy a Che t shirt in case I ever go to a libertarian meeting. It would probably be a quick way to separate the hysterical blowhards from the thoughtful activists."

    Hey Highnumber, just stick to the constant finger wagging and the I'm-above-it-all posts here on H&R. Thanks.

  • ||

    Where is the substance behind this campaign?

    You want substance from the supporters of the more-of-the-same candidate?

    -jcr

  • ||

    joe, it shouldn't excuse him from the Alien & Sedition Acts.

    How about George Mason on some greenbacks? Or whatever color they are this week.

  • ||

    Nick-

    You could say Washington and Jefferson should be excluded because they owned other human beings as chattel property.

    Really, if we put anyone's face on currency, they're going to have their flaws.

  • Zeb||

    The fact that Che is a murderer is pretty irrelevant. I suppose that none of our revolutionary national heroes ever killed anyone?

    To answer the question, it's right wing fooferah. Just trying to associate Obama with unsavory images.

  • ||

    Maybe i'm just weird, but i like Argentina and Argentinians. Buenos Aires is a helluva town, and they seem to be the only ones downs south who actually like gringos. of course if the comment about the italians and the nazis is correct that makes more sense now, but still...

  • ||

    Cesar, I would say that. Although I should have checked to see if Mason ever owned slaves.

    OK, here is it from Wikipedia:

    "Although an owner of black slaves, and a plantation owner, Mason favored the abolition of the slave trade. He once referred to slavery as "that slow poison, which is daily contaminating the minds and morals of our people." However, he spoke out against including any mention of slavery in the Constitution - whether from an abolitionist or anti-abolitionist standpoint.[7]"

    Hypocrit much? Damn, were there any good people ever? I guess we should just put animals on money, or just a big number 10 and a fancy 20. Right in the middle surrounded by the words "worth less and less every day, but you can still use it!"

  • highnumber||

    Edward!

    Where ya been?
    How's things?

  • ||

    Nick, we used to just have the personification of "Liberty" on our money. Having the mugs of actual people used to be seen as too Monarchial and European. Which it probably is.

  • What the hell?||

    Commies are bad now? I thought last month criticizing Martin Luther King makes you not fit for respectable society?

  • Les||

    The fact that Che is a murderer is pretty irrelevant. I suppose that none of our revolutionary national heroes ever killed anyone?

    Which of our revolutionary national heroes rounded up civilian businessmen and executed them? Which of them supported the notion of a totalitarian government run by one man?

    To answer the question, it's right wing fooferah. Just trying to associate Obama with unsavory images.

    This, I agree with 100%.

  • ||

    I really like the new "Liberty" Jefferson nickel.

    Very nicely designed, with all of that empty space. Classic and modern at the same time.

  • ||

    What Joe, Wizzie, and Zeb said. Definite fooferah. Wake me when Massachusetts runs a Che flag up a pole outside of the statehouse. Then you would almost have something that exceeds fooferah, but then a lot of people would have to explain why it was okay for Georgia and South Carolina to fly their flags for so long.

  • ||

    Commies are bad now? I thought last month criticizing Martin Luther King makes you not fit for respectable society?

    And here we see why anti-Communism is even less popular in this country than Communism.

    Nevermind the King wasn't a communist; think about what this commenter thinks is worth denouncing about communism, and what major distinction is so unimportant as to gloss right over.

  • What the hell?||

    Which is funny, because it was Moynihan's anti-communism which inspired him to ignore U.N. sanctions and covertly ship weapons to Suharto's Indonesia while it was slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians in East Timor.

    It's an all-too common philosophy, really:

    communist atrocity = bad!
    anti-communist atrocity = good!


    Yes, sort of like

    Evil = bad
    Fighting evil = good

  • ||

    Everyone loves Brett Favre. Put him on the $20. Or do we have to wait til he's dead?

  • ||

    I guess those ditches full of bodies were "good" ditches.

    What the hell?, people like you are why there are still communists in the world.

  • Episiarch||

    Put Master Shake on the $20. He's just a cartoon character so you don't have to wait.

  • ||

    I think more people who wear Che shirts are aware of what they mean than you think. There has always been an adolescent fascination with "fairness." Having never been taught any economics and never having to had to feed themselves, the young think that "fairness" is so paramount that it can come out of the barrel of a gun or from a central planning committee. The socialism of youth is a failure of education, but it is real socialism nevertheless.

    Young people either wake up out of it (right around the first paycheck), embrace it fully and flower into Marxists, or internalize the ideas and reject the methods, becoming leftists in the American mode, professing and acting on a concern for the "less fortunate" or the "disenfranchised." (Who we really only come into conflict with when they seek to force us through politics to share and participate in their hobby of altruism.)

  • ||

    You could say Washington and Jefferson should be excluded because they owned other human beings as chattel property.

    So did Benjamin Franklin in his younger days.

  • Click \'n\' Learn||

    While Gillespie has been polishing his jacket, ,a href="http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007471.html">I've put up a video of the segment featuring the flag, and I've also contacted the Obama campaign. They stressed that it's not an official office, nor will it be.

  • Click \'n\' Learn||

  • ||

    Hey Lonewacko -

    Regarding your posts - Unnecessary things is addressed on a different thread,

  • PC||

    What an outrage. This communist worshipper makes me so angry I could kill Tom Lantos.

  • ||

    "The fact that Che is a murderer is pretty irrelevant. I suppose that none of our revolutionary national heroes ever killed anyone?

    To answer the question, it's right wing fooferah. Just trying to associate Obama with unsavory images."



    More ignorance.

    How can it be irrelevant, and further how can his actions be compared to the average revolutionary? What he did went beyond the killing for self-preservation associated with the pursuit of freedom, democracy (what democracy in Cuba?), and justice; he was a cold-blooded, hateful, prejudiced murderer.

    "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary… These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall! (El Paredón)" - Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

    And about him being an icon to Mexicans and Blacks, while true, shows how little anyone knows beyond the iconic Korda image:

    "The Negro is indolent and spends his money on frivolity and drink, whereas the european is intelligent and forward looking."

    "Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate indians. South American peasants are nothing but animalitos (little animals)"

    - Ernesto "Che" Guevara


    I find it interesting that the people to whom he held the most contempt - mexicans, blacks, "peasants," gays - are predominantly found on the left side of the isle, where his image is most frequently revered.

  • ||

    It is definitely commie loving. They are just morons who know nothing about history and have no clue how awful Che was. It doesn't really say anything about Obama. Every national candidate has morons who support them. I guarantee you I could find plenty of
    Clinton supporters who think that a Che flag is A OK and plenty of Republicans who are confederate sympathizers who think the Confederate Battle Flag is A OK and Lincoln was a fascist dictator who ruined the country.

    The only thing this says about Obama is that he is not doing a very good job riding herd over his supporters.

  • Les||

    Yes, sort of like

    Evil = bad
    Fighting evil = good


    Wow, that was exactly Che's and Mao's mindset! Remember kids, the sick philosophy that mass-murder of civilians can be a good thing isn't just for communists. It's for hate-filled, ignorant, war mongering loyalists of every ideological stripe!

  • Rae||

  • ||

    What kind of jack-ass thinks wearing a Che T-shirt demonstrates solidarity with anything? Probably the same nimrod who thinks Iraq attacked us on 9-11, or a Fox news watcher/reporter. College kids are ignorant morons for wearing the t-shirts, not communists.
    I saw a Ron Paul bumpersticker at my last Klan rally.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    To answer the question, it's right wing fooferah. Just trying to associate Obama with unsavory images.

    Which is why supporters of Obama tacked a Che/Cuban flag the campaign office wall. Just right wingers trying to make Obama look bad by associating him with unsavory images.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Nobody is responsible for more American deaths than the followers of the Confederacy Abraham Lincoln.



    There. Fixed that for you.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    College kids are ignorant morons for wearing the t-shirts, not communists.

    Back in the day college students were both. Carried the red books to prove it.

  • ||

    This is weird because in terms of economic policy at least Obama is definitely to the right of Clinton just look at his economic advisers and health care plan.

  • ||

    Yes, Franklin it was all Lincoln's fault. The South and their disgusting elitist slaveholding society going crazy and starting shooting had nothing to do with it. Lincoln never said he was going to end slavery, just keep it from spreading to the territories. The South went nuts and left the union because slavery in the South wasn't good enough for them, they had to extend it everywhere, including the North after the Southern controlled Supreme Court ruled that Southern slave holders could take their slaves to the North as slaves. Of course Lincoln could have let wayward sisters go their way and today we would have South Africa on our southern border rather than the wonderful southern states we have. Boy, wouldn't that have been a great alternative history.

  • tarran||

    John,

    Quick question: do you think the U.S. was wrong to fight the British in the War of 1812?

  • ||

    What kind of jack-ass thinks wearing a Che T-shirt demonstrates solidarity with anything?

    Probably the jackass wearing the Che T-shirt.

  • ||

    I don't see Che being of the same caliber as Lincoln or even Jefferson Davis, he was just a terrorist. Better to compare him with Bin Laden.

  • ||

    Tarran,

    That is a good question. There is no real clear cut answer to that. Frankly, it was mistake in hindsight. The British were a lot stronger and were going to kick the crap out of us. We probably would have been better off grinning and bearing the British Navy kidnapping our merchant sailors than getting into a full scale war and having Washington burned. Historians have never really been able to point to one reason why the US got into that war. In retrospect it was a bad decision, but a lot of people who are smarter than I argue that given what was known at the time, it wasn't so bad.

  • ||

    "Mexicans are a rabble of illiterate indians. South American peasants are nothing but animalitos (little animals)"

    Emphasis mine.

    Did Che actually say that quote in English or did the translator keep the word animalitos in his translation? I'm not sure which would be worse.

  • tarran||

    So, you're cool with the British officers declaring "Once an Englishman, always an Englishman" to justify seizing U.S. sailors and forcing them to serve in the British Navy?

  • Taktix®||

    Nevermind the King wasn't a communist; think about what this commenter thinks is worth denouncing about communism, and what major distinction is so unimportant as to gloss right over.

    Even if King was a communist, he is definitely not on par with Che. Part of what makes Communism terrible is the inherent violence required to keep central control.

    King preached non-violence and made many freedom-promoting changes, and these things need to be taken into account when King's virtue is scrutinized.

    In related news, that "che paul" thing (12:49 p.m.) is disturbing, and Thomas Jefferson should have a more prominent denomination. The most prominent libertarian (Payne excluded) of the founding fathers and all he gets is a lousy nickel?

    I mean, shit, "lousy nickel" is a cliche for a reason.

  • ||

    Tarran-

    The real reason we fought is because western politicians thought it would be easy to seize Canada. Impressment just gave them an excuse.

  • ||

    2. It's proof that some of Obama's supporters are morons who think a mass murderer and hater of gays is sexy symbol of revolution.

    True, but not all. I voted for Obama today in the MD primary. O'malley is a Hillary supporter, therefore MayorOmalleySuxs is an Obama supporter.

  • Another Phil||

    The real reason we fought is because western politicians thought it would be easy to seize Canada. Impressment just gave them an excuse.

    You have to admit, it's a pretty good excuse.

  • ||

    Jefferson is also on the $2. Which used to matter, as I understand things.

  • ||

    I think we can all safely agree that the british are wankers past present and future, that Che was a mass murdering terrorist, that obama leans left and his followers lean lefter, that lincoln did what he did and the south did what it did and neither was innocent, that blacks are not animalitos, that the founders were hypocrites but that ideas have more impact than the individuals who articulate them, that it's not a good idea to have people's faces on your currency or clothing, that argentina is a cool place regardless of italians and nazis, and that commies suck, right?

  • ||

    Cesar,

    That is certainly what aggrieved Canadians all claim. Talk to any Canadian and you can ussually get the "you guys tried to conquer us in 1812" line. There is some debate about that. Certainly some in the West thought that we could grab Canada from Britian who was distracted fighting Napoleon. But, I am not sure they totally carried the day or were the only reason we went to war.

  • ||

    Shane,

    Pretty much.

  • ||

    I move to amend Shane's comment by adding the phrase "...with excellent Malbecs..." immediately after "...cool place..."

    Can I have a second?

  • tarran||

    Cesar,

    I know... But John is not interested in the real reasons, he's interested in the "official" reasons. The official casus belli for the U.S. invasion of the confederacy was the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumpter, which was being used by the Federal Govt as a base to collect taxes from shipping entering Confederate ports.

    The U.S. attitude towards the Confederacy was quite similar to the British attitude toward the U.S. 50 years earlier (except, of course, the British didn't wage Total War on the U.S. civilian population).

    It appears, though, that John is being consistent.

  • ||

    aggrieved Canadians

    Also known as "Canadians."

  • ||

    Tarran-

    You forget there was a convention held by the border states at the time to try to get a compromise with a peaceful reconstruction of the seceeded states into the Union. The Confederate leadership would have none of it, though. They wanted something to shock the upper south into seceeding, and they got it with Fort Sumter.

  • Episiarch||

    Shane is being far too reasonable. Let's kick his ass.

  • ||

    The U.S. attitude towards the Confederacy was quite similar to the British attitude toward the U.S. 50 years earlier (except, of course, the British didn't wage Total War on the U.S. civilian population).

    And that whole "representation in the legislature/ability to elect the Executive" thing.

    But, hey, you're totally right. Those sailors were enforcing the law as directed by Congress, so they had a little shelling coming.

  • ||

    Shane, agreed.

    If a Canadian says that 1812 line to me, I'd rip on them for not fighting for their freedom from England themselves. That 1982 puss out is just that.

    Another thing we might agree on...Canada and Argentina, besides both being really really white for Western Hemispherians are both the UKs bitch and should be mocked accordingly.

  • Taktix®||

    There is some debate about that. Certainly some in the West thought that we could grab Canada from Britian who was distracted fighting Napoleon.

    Actually, I just saw a History Channel special on this. They did indeed try to invade Canada when the U.K. was distracted by Napoleon, but the reason it's rarely talked about is the the U.S. campaign was a complete and utter failure, and it happened well before the British brought their full-scale invasion.

  • stephen the goldberger||

    Capital-R "Revolution" and American politicians using the slogan "change" when running against the incumbent party are similar enough to stand in for each other in that sentence.

    Sure they are.


    Thats the entire point, there is little in common with Che and Obama but these idiots don't realize it and idolize Che because of what they think he represents. He's like a folk hero and they are ignorant of the reality of who he was.

  • ||

    quick question: is there a war that the U.S. of A. has fought or been a part of that could be justified in the minds of libertarians, other than the american revolution? seems that every war after that one is claimed to be unjustified or contested by libertarians, or is it just me? seriously, the war of 1812?

  • ||

    I hope all those grabbing the smelling salts over this were even more outraged about Dick Cheney (not an unauthorized group of supporters of his party) personally being happy to chill under the Confedarate flag, which certainly represents far more death and misery over a couple hundred years of American slavery than even the blood-stained Cuban revolution has managed to rack up since 1959.
    See http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/30/cheney.hunting.ap/index.html

  • ||

    Taran,

    I don't even know what to say to that. Just because some people in the West had designs on Canada doesn't mean everyone who supported the War of 1812 did so for that reason. The truth is that there is no consensus among historians why the US entered that War. I am not sure the people themselves knew quite why. It is a very curious war in that regard.

    As far as the South goes, nothing forced the South the go crazy and leave the Union. The North was not going to end Slavery. There was nowhere near enough support for doing that in the country. If I would compare the South's decision to leave to Union to any other decision in history, I would compare it to Germany's decision to start World War I. Neither decision made any rational sense and was the product of paranoid "if we don't do it now it will only be worse in the future" thinking. It was madness.

  • ||

    Shane-

    World War II, unless you're a real nutjob.

  • ||

    Cesar- i've heard plenty of libertarians state that if we hadn't been giving support to the U.K. and messing with Japan's resources everything would have worked out, and that it was a European and Asian conflict, not our business, entangling alliances and all that...

  • ||

    Cesar- i've heard plenty of libertarians state that if we hadn't been giving support to the U.K. and messing with Japan's resources everything would have worked out, and that it was a European and Asian conflict, not our business, entangling alliances and all that...



    Yes, and they're first class idiots.

  • highnumber||

    Shane,

    To ancaps, only a revolution is legitimate. Then you've got socially liberal neocons, like Dondero, to whom probably any US fought war is legit. Figure there are libertarians of lots of stripes in between who would be able to justify one war or another for some reason.

  • ||

    "Yes, and they're first class idiots."


    Yes they are and there are a lot of them out there. They usually also go with the "Hitler had some good ideas he just went to far and his real enemy was the Communists anyway. All we did in defeating Hitler was save the Communists and allow them to conquer half of Europe" line of bullshit.

  • ||

    Shane, I'm with Cesar on this one. I don't give a shit if we stop selling goods and oil to Japan or we move our ships around in a provacative manner or thumb our noses at them. They still had no right to bomb us. I also see no problem with us providing materials to the UK while they fight a war against someone else. That's our choice and we were not physically hurting anyone in the process. WWII was justified. We rightly declared war against Japan, and then we went to war against Germany when Germany declared war on us.

    Even if you consider that not providing material to one country and providing material to another leads to the potential of being attacked, we did have moral grounds for both. Japan was ravaging China and Korea and Germany was the aggressor in Europe. So if we choose to stop supporting bad regimes in favor of better ones, tough shit to the bad regimes.

  • Episiarch||

    i've heard plenty of libertarians state that if we hadn't been giving support to the U.K. and messing with Japan's resources everything would have worked out

    While the first part is true, we would almost assuredly have had to deal with the Nazis and the Japanese eventually. Hitler was a fucking maniac and the Japanese were rabidly imperial.

    Them hitting us was the excuse to deal with them sooner rather than later. If Hitler hadn't fucked up and attacked Russia he'd have had all of Europe and Britain under his control and would have just started building up again.

    We're sort of an island that's very hard to attack, and a tough nut to crack, but a growing Japanese Empire on one side and a completely Nazi Europe on the other would be some powerful nutcrackers.

  • ||

    Nick,

    Those are all good points. There is a line of idiot, however, who thinks that it was somehow the US's fault that Japan attacked us but would never in a million years think that it was okay for the US to bomb another country over what amounted to a trade dispute. Most of the "get the US out of North America" types become leftists but a few of them are Libertarians. The Libertarian ones spend their time explaining how it was really the US's fault that Japan attacked us.

  • ||

    I ask because of the following conflicts...

    World War I · World War II · Korean War · Vietnam War · Gulf War · Somali Civil War · Bosnian War · Kosovo War · War in Afghanistan · Iraq War
    External Indian Wars · Quasi-War · First Barbary War · War of 1812 · Second Barbary War · Mexican-American War · Spanish-American War · Philippine-American War · Banana Wars · Invasion of Grenada · Invasion of Panama
    Internal Revolutionary War · Shays' Rebellion · Whiskey Rebellion · Seminole Wars · Toledo War · Mormon War · Honey War · Bleeding Kansas · Utah War · Civil War · Brooks-Baxter War · Battle of Blair Mountain · McMinn County War



    ...I hear/read "libertarians" unanimously support the U.S. federal government in only one, that being the Revolutionary War.

  • Episiarch||

    I support the Lincoln County War.

  • ||

    The only truly justifiable war was the invasion of Grenada. I mean, really, fuck those guys.

  • ||

    Jefferson is also on the $2. Which used to matter, as I understand things.

    Stop at the bank today and get all your cash changed to $2 bills. The look of befuddlement on a cashier's face when you pay with them is priceless.

    Cesar- i've heard plenty of libertarians state that if we hadn't been giving support to the U.K. and messing with Japan's resources everything would have worked out, and that it was a European and Asian conflict, not our business, entangling alliances and all that...

    They're assholes.

  • Taktix®||

    seems that every war after that one is claimed to be unjustified or contested by libertarians, or is it just me? seriously, the war of 1812?

    I think libertarians, as a whole, are willing to question the impeccable nobility of the "winner" more than other groups might.

    So, just for fun:

    Revolutionary War: Clearly the most justified. Would've been nice to break from England like ol' Mohandis, but hey, we'll take what we can get.

    War of 1812: OK, a little shady going into it, but still justified, but impressment was a taking a freedom -- the greatest sin for a libertarian.

    Mexican-American War: Grossly unjustified. Manifest Destiny at it's worst, and it's build-up was eerily similar to the Iraq War build-up.

    Civil War: I wouldn't touch that with someone else's ten-foot pole.

    Spanish-American War: Had some foundations in legitimacy (Cuba's independence), but ended up being fought for dubious reasons.

    WWI: Completely unjustified, and was America's debut as a world-wide meddler.

    WWII: Looked like WWI at first, but with Pearl Harbor and the Concentration Camp stuff coming out, ended up being damn well justified.

    Korea: I figure we should wait until it ends before passing judgment.

    Vietnam: Ha! Take a guess.

    Iraq 1.0: Some legitimacy in the vein of saving people from bondage, but really none of our business.

    Iraq 2.0: See Vietnam above.

  • Taktix®||

    Iraq 1.0: Some legitimacy in the vein of saving people from bondage, but really none of our business.

    Add to that: very little loss of life, at least initially...

  • ||

    I read a book once(can't remember title) by a guy who claimed that it was all downhill after the Whiskey Rebellion. had a talking monkey in the story too. good story, i just thought it was odd that was where he drew a line in the sand.

  • ||

    Shane, I bet you could find one libertarian that did not support the Revolutionary War. Hell, even Kos said he was a Libertarian Democrat whatever the hell that means.

    John, I know those people are out there saying we provoked Japan. To them I would say, "is it OK to provide oil and materiale to a country that is raping and pillaging mainland Asia?" If both sides do not agree on a transaction, either side has every right to stop without being assaulted.

  • ||

    I agree with everything Taktix said except the Mexican War. I think its a grey area--Santa Anna was the Saddam Hussein of his time except he was right at our southern border.

    Oh, and Afghanistan:Justified to bomb the shit out of the Taliban and find Al Qaeda, but I don't agree with the nation-building aspects of it.

  • ||

    Afghanistan is a tough one, because the agressor was not a state, but they were given safe haven by a state. In hindsight, I'd say we should have talked to the Taliban (as heinous as they are) and say "look, jagoffs, you've got the guys we want. Hand them all over or be blown to smithereens. We don't want to get involved with you but we will if need be." Same goes for Pakistan right now, in my opinion. "We're after al Qaeda and will roll you if you don't give them up. If you don't give them up, you are harboring fugitives and we will respond accordingly."

    Of course there is still that little question of who knew what, who was working for whom, etc, but the above is based on OBL and al Qaeda being at sole fault.

  • tarran||

    Shane,

    It really depends on what flavor of libertarian you are talking about. Extremist anarchists like me are prettymuch opposed to all wars, but we are in a minority. Most libertarians approve of some wars and disapprove of others.

    My take is that, if you see some great evil in the world and you want to fight it, more power to you. However, unless you convince me to bankroll it, you have no right to force me to pay for it.

    The vast majority of wars are fought for pretty vile reasons. The war where any side has any justification for taking arms is pretty rare. Usually you have two groups each fighting for the benefit of a few.

    There are situations where I would take up arms and fight. However, with the exception of the Revolutionary War, and some of the defensive actions of the War of 1812 and World War II, I can't think of any war where I would be willing to participate in or provide funding for any U.S. war.

  • ||

    World War I is a tougher one than people think. The Germans were conducting unrestricted Submarine warfare and attacking US merchant ships. So what if the US was selling arms and food to the British, isn't the Libertarian position that you should sell anyone you like? How is it that the same people who today claim that we should be trading with North Korea and Cuba, say that they US should have essentially discontinued trade with Britain during World War I. It wasn't just about arms. The Germans were trying to starve the British out. Had the US never sold one bullet to Britain, Germany still would have sunk US merchant ships supplying Britain with food. Also, the Germans tried to stop Americans from loaning the British money. Again, what business is it of Germany who we loan money to? World War I seems like a much more justified war than the War of 1812.

  • ||

    "Afghanistan is a tough one, because the agressor was not a state, but they were given safe haven by a state. In hindsight, I'd say we should have talked to the Taliban (as heinous as they are) and say "look, jagoffs, you've got the guys we want. Hand them all over or be blown to smithereens. We don't want to get involved with you but we will if need"


    We did that Nick. The Security Council Resolution authorizing war against the Taliban gave them like 48 hours or something to hand over Bin Ladin and stop supporting Al Quada and the Taliban told us and the world to fuck off.

  • ||

    48 hours?

    How were they supposed to find and present the guy in only 48 hours?

  • ||

    "48 hours?

    How were they supposed to find and present the guy in only 48 hours?"


    It is not like they tried to find him and failed. They refused to even expel him or to stop actively supporting Al Quada. They told the Security Council to go to hell in no uncertain terms. Difficult to say Afghanistan is an unjust war, although some nuts do.

  • Kolohe||

    OT 1812 digression:

    The history of the USA from 1810-1860 is a history of the relationship between the North, the South, and the West in terms of:

    1) the shifting of passions for union, secession, and expansion between the three
    2) the balance of politco-economic power among the three
    3) the personas of Daniel Webster, John C Calhoun, and Henry Clay.


    and of course slavery.

    1812 was desired by western and New England interests for expansion, but resisted by most Southern interests. New England was talking secession in the 1810's if the south didn't go along, but Clay got everone to compromise (his trademark) and keep it together

    from 1820 - 1840 expansion was loved by everyone, and three factions all got along; to the point that at the beginning of this era someone had to vote against Monroe just so he wouldn't be unanimous. They were able to comprimise on the slavery thing with Mo/Maine and put off a showdown for a generation

    By the 1840's expansion was desired by western and southern interests, but not necessarily by the same New England interests anymore. But Clay again was able to gt everyone to comprimise and we got some of the best parts of Mexico; but the slavery comprimises were starting to wear thin, and this one only lasted another 10 years - and was the source of immediate violent conflict.

  • Taktix®||

    I think its a grey area--Santa Anna was the Saddam Hussein of his time except he was right at our southern border.

    Cesar,

    If I'm not mistaken, Santa Anna was in exile at the outbreak of the war. Funny thing was, in order to get past the U.S. blockade, he told President Polk that he could broker a deal to end the war.

    The ship let him in, and he went on to lead the Mexican army, making Polk look like a fool...

  • Taktix®||

    I'd say we should have talked to the Taliban (as heinous as they are) and say "look, jagoffs, you've got the guys we want. Hand them all over or be blown to smithereens. We don't want to get involved with you but we will if need be."

    If I recall correctly, we did this for a few days before attacking Afghanistan, and the Taliban basically told us to pound salt. Or opium...

  • ||

    John, if the Taliban did that, and the Taliban is the ruling state, and they were, we are required by the Constitution to declare war against that state. We should have done that. That doesn't mean the reason for going to war against Afghanistan wasn't justified, it means we should follow our own laws when acting justifiably. So, I agree with you, but I don't give two shits what the UN approves or rejects.

  • ||

    Quick question though, who was more of a douchebag / pile of crap / mass murdering thug - the Che'ster or Battista?

  • Kolohe||

    and I'm pretty cynical about 'just war.'

    Victory is it's own justification, and defeat means you shouldn't have got involved or should have sought alternative resolution mechanisms.

  • ||

    Ah, the levels of suckiness of mass murdering fuckheads....

  • ||

    Self-defense is justified even if you lose, Kolohe.

  • ||

    Nick,

    We don't declare war anymore and it pisses me off to. They should have declared war against both Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, they pass "congressional authorizations for the use of force" which is the same thing but they don't call it a declaration of war. The reason for it is, I think, that Congress wants to be able to pull back its authorization when it feels like it. It can't really undeclare war. Also, a declaration of war gives the President inherent powers Congress doesn't like.

  • ||

    Hell, even Kos said he was a Libertarian Democrat whatever the hell that means.



    Is that like a hairy iguana?

  • ||

    sef,

    Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
    -Nietzsche

    Che didn't know his philosophy as well as he thought. They are both monsters, and very few people here will defend Batista.

  • Kolohe||

    Self-defense is justified even if you lose, Kolohe.

    Right, which is why I am in favor of a strong defense so 'my side' however it is defined, does not lose.

  • tarran||

    Regarding "provoking" Japan:

    First, the Japanese attempts to set up an empire where pretty abominable, and the atrocities such as the rape of Nanking etc were absoltuely unjustified and heinous.

    However, the Japanese imperial ambition was blowback from U.S. imperialism as sure as garbage attracts flies.

    It all started when the U.S. Navy forced the Japanese empire to open its ports to foreign trade. This trigerred a massive revolution in Japan that resulted in a complete reworking of Japanese society. Many Japanese leaders looked at what was hapenning around the World and came away with the following lesson:

    "Colonize or be colonized". They were especially concerned about the looting of China by the European powers (with the U.S. as an enthusiastic late-comer). The revolution resulted in a powerful centralized imperial government with a military organized along western lines. The Japanese then went out to establish their own sphere of influence, to set themselves up as an impire just like England, the U.S., France, Russia, the Dutch, or Germany.

    The big difference between the westerners and the Japanese was not in what they did, but the degree. The Europeans might torture a a few tens of men to death, the Japanese would do it to everybody living in a good-sized town. Whereas the Europeans' actions were tempered by customs regarding warfare left over from before the age of Empire, the Japanese had no such restraint, and their savagery was breathtakingly horrific.

    Furthermore, the rising tide of opinion against the Japanese governemnt's actions were usually expressed in the most racist manner. The painting and smearing of subhuman Japs had the perverse effect of polarizing Japan even further. The pacifists were marginalized while the expansionists gained in power.

    If the U.S. Navy had not threatened the port cities of Japan with bombardment, it is possible that Japan would have embarked on its imperial quest. However, it would have been highly unlikely. To point out that fact is not stupid.

  • ||

    "To point out that fact is not stupid."

    No but it doesn't in anyway excuse of justify what the Japanese did. Just because we forced them into the modern world, didn't give them the right to start the war. It is not so much as it is stupid, it is that it is irrelevent.

  • GILMORE||

    tarran | February 12, 2008, 4:47pm | #

    Tarrran, do you have any books as reference material that support this particular readubg of Japanese militarism? Im not challenging you, it's just an angle that i've not come across in my readings about WWII... which admittedly are mostly centered on European theatre, and maybe a few things on specific operations in the pacific, but not macro level things.

    Or is this just your personal view?

  • Paul||

    Hit & Runners, what say you? Righteous commie outrage or phoney right-wing fooferaw?

    Neither... and both.

    It's part of normal politics to find some fringe of people supporting a candidate you don't like, and hold them up as the 'party faithful'. To quote Eleanor Clift: Everybody does it.

  • GILMORE||

    readubg = "reading"

    !@&*#$&*@ need an autospellchecker everywhere now

  • ||

    Once again history leaves me without heroes to root for and without the simplicity of "good deeds by good men against the evils of _____". how depressing. it's no wonder i'm such an escapist.

  • GILMORE||

    p.s.

    The Che poster was probably a clinton thing! :)

    They are at that point right now where ratfucking is a definite option

  • GILMORE||

    p.p.s.

    Seriously, we have to stop injecting "martin luther king was a gay communist?" AND/OR "lets debate ideosyncratic war-history related topics" at every given opportunity. I mean really.

  • ||

    Nick

    Nice Eddie Izzard reference.

    "Cake or Death?!"

    Kool

  • ||

    If the U.S. Navy had not threatened the port cities of Japan with bombardment, it is possible that Japan would have embarked on its imperial quest. However, it would have been highly unlikely.

    Interesting. I find it hard to argue that if we had left Japan in a quasi-feudal, pre-industrial state, they probably wouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor.

    Of course, you can also blame (really, this isn't a Godwin) Hitler on the US, as well. WWI was basically settling down into a stalemate until the US entered the war. The French, if anything, were about to crack - you could hear the German shelling from Paris, I seem to recall.

    So, the US enters the war, and next thing you know - humiliating Versailles treaty. Without that treaty, no way you get Weimar Germany, Hitler, etc.

    Yet somehow, I don't feel the US is responsible for either Nanking or Auschwitz. Maybe I'm just obtuse.

  • tarran||

    GILMORE,

    I'll have to find a reference for you. The books regretably are packed in boxes in my basement, and not at my fingertips.

    It actually is something I concluded from reading about the Meiji restoration, and the destruction of the Samurai.

    In my youth, I used to Kung Fu, then Aikido, and was exposed to a lot of recent history of China and Japan from reading various books on the martial arts I was studying.

    Several of the texts made oblique comments that made it pretty apparent, when reading between the lines, that the Japanese Emperor did not *want* to end up like the Chinese emperor. When you consider how few decades passed between Japanese helplessness in the face of theU.S. Navy sailing into Tokyo Harbor to the Japanese annihilation of both the Eastern and Western fleets of the Russian Navy in the Russo-Japanese war, you can't escape the single minded focus the Japanese emperor had in making his empire competitive with the European ones.

  • tarran||

    RC Dean,

    That's precisely the point. Take that kid who killed his father on Sam Donaldson's ranch. Everybody who knew them agreed that they father was "overly strict" and a "harsh disciplinarian who on occasion went too far".

    Does this mean that the boy had a right to shoot him? No.

    On the other hand did the father bear some of the blame for his son's actions? Yes, inasmuch as the father's mistreatment of the son was the source of the son's anger. Had the father treated his son like a human being, I doubt the son would have ever pointed a shotgun at another human being.

    As much as the Japanese, German and Soviet aggression in World War II was unjustified, one cannot deny that without some pretty interventionist behaviors on the part of the U.S> none of that aggression would have ha penned. Of course who knows what *other* wars of aggression would have been launched int that alternate history?

  • Kolohe||

    tarran/GILMORE

    "Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan" by Herbert P Bix is a 857 page version of tarran's 4:47

  • ChrisO||

    I think another thread hashing out World War II calls for a drink or two...

  • Metal Messiah||

    I have a few Che shirts that I wear because they piss off rednecks.

  • Les||

    Messiah, you can piss them off with Darwin or MLK shirts, too, without needing to pretend you admire a mass murderer.

  • .||

    Tarrran, do you have any books as reference material that support this particular readubg of Japanese militarism? Im not challenging you, it's just an angle that i've not come across in my readings about WWII... which admittedly are mostly centered on European theatre, and maybe a few things on specific operations in the pacific, but not macro level things.

    Or is this just your personal view?


    That point of view is pretty much what I learned in school about Japan from the late 1800s to WWII. I think its the general academic understanding.

    -We showed up and showed off our big guns.
    -They became scared shitless, tried to modernize quickly.
    -In that process, because they were highly decentralized before, there was a campaign to create a strong Japanese identity.
    -They ended up with the idea that they need to create a buffer zone in all directions to protect themselves.

  • B||

    Perhaps if the dipshits on this website did their fucking homework for once they would realize the reason the scare quotes are around the word official in NR is because the office was set up by volunteers but is set to be taken over by paid Obama staffers. But hey, I guess you couldn't pass up taking a shot at a magazine that is more relevant, has more circulation and didn't support a bigot for the office of President.

    P.S. The Capt. Ed joke was fucking retarded. Is it any wonder the "humor" magazine some of the morons at this site founded was such a colossal fucking failure.

  • B||

    "I'm as outraged as when I saw Ron Paul banners on the Stormfront site."

    As was I. I had no idea Stormfront had become that bigoted.

  • B||

    "And here we see why anti-Communism is even less popular in this country than Communism"

    Yeah, I remember how people wailed and gnashed their teeth in this country when the Berlin Wall fell. The likenesses of Anti-communists were burned in effigy everywhere that fateful night. Stalin is still a figure of veneration in the United States whereas Reagan and Pope John Paul are regularly cited as the most hated figures of the 20th century.

    Every time you write something joe, you demonstrate that perhaps you are the dumbest motherfucker ever to type www.reason.com at the top of his web browser.

  • ||

    "I never saw anyone wearing a Che shirt reading Rand in my high school. I think I wouldn't have understood that irony at the time because I didn't have a clue what either was about."

    Just like seeing someone in a "Who is John Galt" tee shirt reading "The Motorcycle Diaries"? That kind of irony? Just asking.

  • ||

    Gilmore wrote

    readubg = "reading"

    !@&*#$&*@ need an autospellchecker everywhere now


    The great thing about Firefox (I know that it is come "freeware") that it underscores with a red line (I know, red, must its a commie plot) typos. Firefox does a fairly decent job, but, sometimes I just don't give a fuck and don't bother to correct my typos when their underscored -- but I roll like that & firefox gives me that choice.

  • sef||

    is come "freeware"

    That line should have read "is commie freeware."

  • ||

    I'm embarrassed to say I haven't heard of half of those wars.

    I'm a pretty well-educated person.

    My, we've had a lot of wars.

  • ||

    B needs a hug.

  • Eric Dondero||

    There was a moderate-conservative Republican State Senator from the Chicago suburbs who hung out at Libertarian functions: Steve Schullenberger. He was the keynote speaker at the 2004 IL LP Convention in Springfield.

    Schullenberger said last year on Obama:

    "Nice guy, but in the Illinois Senate, he had a voting record to the left of Mao Tse Tung."

    On Obama the guy who scored a perfect 100 on the Marxist ADA scorecard, keep in mind Pol Pot had a smiley face too.

  • GILMORE||

    Dondero,

    Eat donkey cock

  • ARTIS||

    Donkey,

    Eat Gilmore cock.

  • ||

    ---> Also don't Obama's supporters know that a Reagan flag would have been more appropriate.

    I mean after all even Che haters usually only accuse him of overseeing the execution of a few hundred people (while conveniently forgetting they were murderers, and torturers of the former dictatorship) .... while Reagan helped in the death of 1 million Iraqi/Iranians by selling weapons to both sides ... and also Reagan's CONTRA death squads lead to the deaths of 70,000 in El Salvador, more than 100,000 in Guatemala, and 30,000 in Nicaragua.

    Get with it people ... now Reagan ... that guy could cause some butchering.

  • ||

    Zig Zag Man, yeah, like that.

    In high school, I was busy trying to figure out how to get laid and avoid doing anything that could be considered work. I first heard the word libertarian in college and didn't know of the movement or party really until a few years later.

  • ||

    How the American REICH-WING MIND WORKS …

    Nuking 250,000 Japanese civilians = Good
    Che overseeing the execution of former Dictator Batista's torturers = Bad

    Slave Owners & Genocidal Presidents (millions of Natives) on US $ = Good
    Flag of Cuba with their National Hero's face on it = Bad

    US Jets Shock and Aweing Iraq and killing thousands of people = Freedom
    Che traveling to Bolivia to fight for the landless peasants = Terrorism

    Guerrilla & Slave Owner George Washington shooting the enemy = Hero
    Guerrilla Che Guevara shooting the enemy = Assassin

    The US invading Vietnam and causing 2 million civilian deaths = Freedom
    Che killing a total of around 50 Bolivian soldiers in an attempt to topple an oligarchy = Terrorism


    Etc etc etc .... damn the Reich Wing is STUPID !

  • ||

    Here's the Obama campaig's reponse:

    "This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people."

    http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/12/on_reports_of_an_inappropriate.php

    Satisfied Gismo?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement