Who's Your Historical Hero?

[Aduro Amnis]

The tyrant Fidel Castro has been in power in Cuba for 45 years, and many have perished under his cruelty and opression.
He indeed obtained freedom for himself, as he lives very comfortably and is greeted as a hero in many parts of the world.
Too bad his freedom is not extended to the people he rules over.

Yes, somewhere the democratic revolution of Cuba failed, and turned into a loose dictatorship, but still he sought a dream and reached it

 

[Lifesaver]

It was a terrible dream, AA. It was the materialist (and inherently atheist, you should know) dream of communism, which carries with it injustice and death.

 

[Russebby]

Err, cartridge, Che was a murderous terrorist responsible in great part for the sorrowful state of Cuba today (where people flee the island swimming!).
He was responsible for countless executions at the paredón, and helped many other revolutionaries factions and taught them guerrilla tactics.
The socialism he fought for killed more people than nazism and forces people into a life of misery, lack of freedom and godlessness.

I realize you have an axe to grind with all things socialist in this world, and that is fine. Think what you wish, right, wrong, or indifferent. I have two points to make:

1--If you want to talk about "murderous terrorists" in world history, a good place to start would be the role call of American presidents. Let me offer you a few quick examples--feel free to add to them at your will
ANDREW JACKSON--The Supreme Court said that the forces relocation of the Cherokee from North Carolina to Oklahoma was unconstitutional. Jackson's response: FINE, LET'S SEE THE COURT ENFORCE IT. Jackson is solely responsible for the Trail of Tears, the forced relocation of the Cherokee, which involved the deaths of many, including women and children. Jackson's actions escalated the genocidal campaign Amglo-America was waging against the collective Native American peoples. Under your logic, I guess we can compare Jackson to Hitler, who forcibly removed millions of Jews and Gypsies for the sake of national purity.
FRANKLIN PIERCE--America was already on the precipice of civil war when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was set into motion, installing slavery in the former Louisiana Purchase. But under his tenure, the people of the Midwest fought amongst one another for the local rights to own slaves. Under the guise of popular sovereignty, Kansas erupted in riots. This was the Bleeding Kansas, the dress rehearsal for the American Civil War. Pierce sat idly by, impotent. By not calling in marshalls and militia to calm the situation, the riots grew bloody. By not taking an initial stand against the Act, Pierce allowed riots to occur. Pierce ignored a powderkeg for the sake of popular sovereignty, and it exploded. Pierce was possibly the most careless president we ever had. By allowing factions to lose control and fight, Pierce turned a blind eye. Much like Nero letting Rome burn.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES--Another Republican who got into office without winning the popular vote, the Compromise of 1876 gave the Elephants the White House, and it meant federal troops would leave the former Confederacy. The second that happened, Jim Crow reigned. The Party of Lincoln felt it was more important to retain the presidency than guarantee the new constitutional rights of former slaves. Hayes basically allowed the South to run amok, to turn half of America into an apartheid system. Hayes did nothing to stop the Ku Klux Klan, did nothing to protect African-Americans' right to vote, and did nothing to prevent lynchings by the hundreds every year. It wasn't until the 1950's that the damage started to be undone. But Hayes was at a point in history to do something about guaranteeing the rights of former slaves, and he balked. Hayes unwittingly created an American apartheid, and he deserves the same derision we pressed on South African leaders in the 1980's.
DWIGHT EISENHOWER--Along with Winston Churchill, he is responsible for creating the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. In 1954 he condoned the CIA's overthrow of the budding postwar Iranian government for the sake of installing the pro-US Shah. For twenty years the Shah ruled with an iron fist, and by the late-70's the Iranian people had enough. They overthrew the Shah and turned their back to Western ideals. Because Ike tried to make Iran a puppet to the US, he unwittingly sewed the seeds for the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. Ike created the setting for a whole generation of frustrated Arab young men to strap bombs to their chests and walk into malls in Jerusalem. Bin Laden and Hussein are pariahs, but if you want to really get down to brass tacks, Eisenhower's manipulation of Middle Eastern tactics set the stage for the modern War on Terror.
RICHARD NIXON--Though he ran in 1968 with an alleged secret plan to end the war in Vietnam with honor, he himself expanded the war into Cambodia, a country trying vehemently to maintain its neutrality in this saga. Nixon bombed eastern Cambodia recklessly, which did several very bad things to that country. It led to a massive influx of Vietnamese refugees into Cambodia, something it could not sustain. It led to the dissolution of the fragile government and any hope of possible democracy. It led to the rise of Pol Pot, one of the greatest mass murderers of the century. When America finally left southeast Asia, Pot took his vengeance out on anyone who sympathized with the West. Two million Cambodians were murdered by Pot. The communists took over. All because Nixon lied about having a plan to end the war, all because he recklessly expanded the war. Nixon created Pot.
Don't get me wrong, I am an America, and I love this country. But if you are going to bag on someone for idolizing Guevara by calling him a "murderous terrorist", remember that there are many colorful historical characters right here in the good ol' US of A to bag on.

2--Hasn't anyone ever told you that Jesus is a liberal and a socialist?

 

[Iamthelaw]

Historical Hero
Nicolo Macchiavelli hands down. If more Americans would read his writings our electorate wouldn't be so gulliable

 

[Lifesaver]

2--Hasn't anyone ever told you that Jesus is a liberal and a socialist?

Yes, many people have told me that same lie, which can be easily refuted...

 

[Tours732]

Joseph Stalin- For leading the great development the first working man's state and leading the war against 80% of the Fascist invader.

Vladimir Lenin - For leading the proletariat and saving the world on 1917, providing an example for us all.

Kim Jong-Il - For his awesome leadership and exercise of courage and bravery, and for his brilliance as Supreme Commander.

Che - For fighting selflessly for socialism

Simon Bolivar - For fighting for a unified, anti-capitalist, democratic latin america against the imperialist scum in the USA and Spain.

Most of all, my favourite historical figures, are the broad masses of people that make every revolution come to life and defend it with their lives.

LOL! Are you for real??? Or are you just trying to wind people up? You should read Animal Farm sometime, it would do you some good, and it was written by George Orwell, who was in fact a socialist. Everyone else, pray for this guy, he needs it.

 

[Tours732]

Stalin only because he got Russia up and competing against Britian and Germany with economics. And I know all about Stalin so you don't have to come at me with all these numbers of people killed by him.

Using that measuring stick, I guess Hitler would be a hero as well, for getting Germany back on it's feet!

 

[Tours732]

Why not Stalin? Most information on Stalin has been created to demonize Comrade Stalin as a murderous tyrant who eats babies for breakfast.... lol

Almost all information on Stalin in the 'west' is complete lies. I shall post more on this later....

There is no need to make up lies about 'Comrade Stalin', the truth about him is terrible enough. Why do you think the period after Stalin's death was called 'destalinization'? All of the Soviet leaders after him condemned his crimes, even though they believed in communism. He was a murderous tyrant (though I'm sure he never ate babies for breakfast).

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

Well, this thread has lasted much longer than I expected, so I feel the need to post it again, but I will not post his name; I want to have a little fun. So, he was the man that laughed at Roman Gods in Delphi. He also led the Senones to Sacked Rome and muttered the words "vae victis".

 

[Paladin Dave]

I realize you have an axe to grind with all things socialist in this world, and that is fine. Think what you wish, right, wrong, or indifferent. I have two points to make:

1--If you want to talk about "murderous terrorists" in world history, a good place to start would be the role call of American presidents. Let me offer you a few quick examples--feel free to add to them at your will
ANDREW JACKSON--The Supreme Court said that the forces relocation of the Cherokee from North Carolina to Oklahoma was unconstitutional. Jackson's response: FINE, LET'S SEE THE COURT ENFORCE IT. Jackson is solely responsible for the Trail of Tears, the forced relocation of the Cherokee, which involved the deaths of many, including women and children. Jackson's actions escalated the genocidal campaign Amglo-America was waging against the collective Native American peoples. Under your logic, I guess we can compare Jackson to Hitler, who forcibly removed millions of Jews and Gypsies for the sake of national purity.
FRANKLIN PIERCE--America was already on the precipice of civil war when the Kansas-Nebraska Act was set into motion, installing slavery in the former Louisiana Purchase. But under his tenure, the people of the Midwest fought amongst one another for the local rights to own slaves. Under the guise of popular sovereignty, Kansas erupted in riots. This was the Bleeding Kansas, the dress rehearsal for the American Civil War. Pierce sat idly by, impotent. By not calling in marshalls and militia to calm the situation, the riots grew bloody. By not taking an initial stand against the Act, Pierce allowed riots to occur. Pierce ignored a powderkeg for the sake of popular sovereignty, and it exploded. Pierce was possibly the most careless president we ever had. By allowing factions to lose control and fight, Pierce turned a blind eye. Much like Nero letting Rome burn.
RUTHERFORD B. HAYES--Another Republican who got into office without winning the popular vote, the Compromise of 1876 gave the Elephants the White House, and it meant federal troops would leave the former Confederacy. The second that happened, Jim Crow reigned. The Party of Lincoln felt it was more important to retain the presidency than guarantee the new constitutional rights of former slaves. Hayes basically allowed the South to run amok, to turn half of America into an apartheid system. Hayes did nothing to stop the Ku Klux Klan, did nothing to protect African-Americans' right to vote, and did nothing to prevent lynchings by the hundreds every year. It wasn't until the 1950's that the damage started to be undone. But Hayes was at a point in history to do something about guaranteeing the rights of former slaves, and he balked. Hayes unwittingly created an American apartheid, and he deserves the same derision we pressed on South African leaders in the 1980's.
DWIGHT EISENHOWER--Along with Winston Churchill, he is responsible for creating the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. In 1954 he condoned the CIA's overthrow of the budding postwar Iranian government for the sake of installing the pro-US Shah. For twenty years the Shah ruled with an iron fist, and by the late-70's the Iranian people had enough. They overthrew the Shah and turned their back to Western ideals. Because Ike tried to make Iran a puppet to the US, he unwittingly sewed the seeds for the modern Islamic fundamentalist movement. Ike created the setting for a whole generation of frustrated Arab young men to strap bombs to their chests and walk into malls in Jerusalem. Bin Laden and Hussein are pariahs, but if you want to really get down to brass tacks, Eisenhower's manipulation of Middle Eastern tactics set the stage for the modern War on Terror.
RICHARD NIXON--Though he ran in 1968 with an alleged secret plan to end the war in Vietnam with honor, he himself expanded the war into Cambodia, a country trying vehemently to maintain its neutrality in this saga. Nixon bombed eastern Cambodia recklessly, which did several very bad things to that country. It led to a massive influx of Vietnamese refugees into Cambodia, something it could not sustain. It led to the dissolution of the fragile government and any hope of possible democracy. It led to the rise of Pol Pot, one of the greatest mass murderers of the century. When America finally left southeast Asia, Pot took his vengeance out on anyone who sympathized with the West. Two million Cambodians were murdered by Pot. The communists took over. All because Nixon lied about having a plan to end the war, all because he recklessly expanded the war. Nixon created Pot.
Don't get me wrong, I am an America, and I love this country. But if you are going to bag on someone for idolizing Guevara by calling him a "murderous terrorist", remember that there are many colorful historical characters right here in the good ol' US of A to bag on.

2--Hasn't anyone ever told you that Jesus is a liberal and a socialist?

Yeah, but did he use any of these guys as heros? No, he didn't. When someone makes a comment at your hero, it is more logical to defend it instead of trying to make other people look worse.

 

[Paladin Dave]

This man was a celtic leader named Brennus, he said Vae victus, or woe to the vanquished as he demanded his weight in gold as a ransom to leave rome. Terribly sorry to go off subject, but this reminds me of an episode of the Outer Limits I once saw, in which these martian guys were insecting a dollar bill. One of thme read the latin words and asked what it meant. The other said "It's a dead language of this planet, now adays they use it to impress eachother." Sounds about right to me, hahaha

 

[Paladin Dave]

Quote: Originally Posted by: Koba The Dread Why not Stalin? Most information on Stalin has been created to demonize Comrade Stalin as a murderous tyrant who eats babies for breakfast.... lol

Almost all information on Stalin in the 'west' is complete lies. I shall post more on this later....
Really? I am not sure which part of the world you are from, and I know what they say about him here in the states, but I am curious as to what is told about Stalin where you live. And how exactly do you know that we are told lies? None of us were alive for the reign of Stalin, so its really what one of us is told over another. But for real, what have you heard about him? I'm curious.

 

[Lifesaver]

Oh, and I should mention Socrates as a personal hero of mine as well.

Of course, as a Christian, I don't believe in everything he did, but still his disinterested, authentic and restless search for the absolute truth (which anyone guided by the light of right reason, as he was, admits the existence of), his method of proving his opponents wrong by the use of rational arguments (and of the absurd implications of their position), his detachement from bodily pleasures (though he still kept his body healthy and took care of it) and finally his serene acceptance of the unfair death penalty against him, for purely moral reasons, shows us how his character was truly noble and admirable.

 

[NiemandheißtBoshaftigkeit]

This man was a celtic leader named Brennus, he said Vae victus, or woe to the vanquished as he demanded his weight in gold as a ransom to leave rome. Terribly sorry to go off subject, but this reminds me of an episode of the Outer Limits I once saw, in which these martian guys were insecting a dollar bill. One of thme read the latin words and asked what it meant. The other said "It's a dead language of this planet, now adays they use it to impress eachother." Sounds about right to me, hahaha

...^^; You know what I just remembered, even if the person hadn't known it...the answer is in my quotes , but it looks like you know what you're talking about.

 

[brinny]

William Wallace (the historical figure the movie Braveheart is based on).

 

[gop_ryan]

Political- Churchill and Hamilton
Military- Patton and Bismarck

 

[Paladin Dave]

Gee, I really didn't have it memorized. I actually took it as a challenge and looked it up. So much for looking like I know what I'm doing, haha.:o

 

[Russebby]

Yes, many people have told me that same lie, which can be easily refuted...

Fire away. Give it your best shot.

Remember, though, that before you start the tangent of JESUS IS OPPOSED TO ABORTION, remember that every person on earth has just a little mix of lib and con. No one calls GWB a liberal, yet his Medicare packages are liberalism at its finest. No one calls Clinton a conservative, yet when you consider his level of growth of government and his budget surpluses made Neo-cons envious, one could make the argument.

Get past the hot-button issues of the day, because every generation has a couple. Think of history--this, after all, is a history thread. Think of the broad definitions of lib and con. Then read--actually read--the Gospels. Once you do that, the evidence will show that, with rare exception, Jesus was a bleedinghearted a liberal as there ever was.

Jesus never turned the poor away. Jesus never thought the poor were seeking government handouts and called them lazy. Jesus sought wealth redistribution. Jesus was anti-nationalist. Jesus told people to pay their taxes, because money is of little importance in comparison to eternal salvation.

Offer up a little scripture, and I will do the same. If I sound smarmy, I don't mean to be. But upon actually reading the Gospels, and letting go of your preconceived notions about what people told you about Jesus, I don't think you can come to a conclusion other than JESUS IS A LIBERAL.

 

[Russebby]

Yeah, but did he use any of these guys as heros? No, he didn't. When someone makes a comment at your hero, it is more logical to defend it instead of trying to make other people look worse.

Paladin, what he did say was:

Err, cartridge, Che was a murderous terrorist responsible in great part for the sorrowful state of Cuba today (where people flee the island swimming!).
He was responsible for countless executions at the paredón, and helped many other revolutionaries factions and taught them guerrilla tactics.
The socialism he fought for killed more people than nazism and forces people into a life of misery, lack of freedom and godlessness.

You obviously did not get the point. And that is fine. The point I was making, which was apparently a little over your head, is before you start condemning an entire ideology for the ills of the world, know something about it. Hitler was as socialist as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The socialism of Latin America is not the socialism of Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, and dare I say it, the United States! It is inappropriate to compare Marxist guerrillas in Latin America to the democracies of Europe in this was. According to this logic, it is equally as fair to call all capitalist countries pernicious based on Pinochet's rule in Chile or the Saudi Family's rule in Arabia.

Honestly, if socialism is evil as the poster believes, then America is evil.

And the other point is, before we start condemning the rest of the world for its evils, there are plenty right here in America to talk about. Think of Jesus talking about the splinter in your brother's eye taken to an international level--as much as we want to condemn the rest of the world, there is plenty in American history suitable for condemnation. Worry about the historical board in your own eye than the splinters in Latin America, I say.

 

[Lifesaver]

You obviously did not get the point. And that is fine. The point I was making, which was apparently a little over your head, is before you start condemning an entire ideology for the ills of the world, know something about it. Hitler was as socialist as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The socialism of Latin America is not the socialism of Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, and dare I say it, the United States! It is inappropriate to compare Marxist guerrillas in Latin America to the democracies of Europe in this was. According to this logic, it is equally as fair to call all capitalist countries pernicious based on Pinochet's rule in Chile or the Saudi Family's rule in Arabia.

They are different in practice and in their means, but their ends are admittedly the same. Only some prefer to go through a path of revolutions, and others through the path of reforms.
Those who chose reformism are now waking up to the fact that they're going the wrong way; witness as Germany finally liberalizes its economy (and how the population is against it).
And yes, Nazism was very much socialist (even in the Nazi's party name: national socialist). Nazis were against free trade, used "evil bankers and speculators" as one of their many scapegoats, and had a generally negative view of the liberal economy that the "bourgeoisie" wanted.
Their active repression of communists and other socialist parties in no way means that they were, in practice, quite socialistic themselves.

And the other point is, before we start condemning the rest of the world for its evils, there are plenty right here in America to talk about. Think of Jesus talking about the splinter in your brother's eye taken to an international level--as much as we want to condemn the rest of the world, there is plenty in American history suitable for condemnation. Worry about the historical board in your own eye than the splinters in Latin America, I say.

I'm not sporting the Brazilian flag because I think it pretty, you know...