Mao Zedong: Hero or Tyrant?

Linking something twice does not mean I link it over and over. One more thing it is belief in the way you used the word believe.

You have to be completely incompetent to accidentally starve 55 million people.

I'm not so sure of everything (accusational, in other words, what he's done as a 'Dirty Commie') about him, but Marxism generally was used in a time where peoples and nations were torn, barbaric and poor. Marxist philosophy helped get rid of Imperialism in places where other methods just didn't, and will not work. Mao was a part of ridding corrupt Imperialist regimes, so, I would argue he's a fairly decent leader figure, who's actions against his enemies helped lots of people.

50-70 million.

But are you denying that you have to have SOME competancy to lead so many people?

You don't have to be competent, you just have to have the biggest gun. Might Makes Right.

And Mao had the biggest guns.

Yeah.
Because the US stopped selling to the Nationalists because they were killing Communists. Irony, right?

And the 'big gun' concept doesn't really make sense. The Communists didn't really have the biggest nor more. If the people decided that they didn't want to have the Communists OR the Nationalists, they could have easily disposed of both. That truth still holds.

Besides, Mao still managed to lead his troops. To compel someone to do something is tough. To compel someone to risk, and even lose, their lives in the the pursuit of a cause, is something that I believe is outside the realm of most people's highest ambitions.

Might makes right huh, im rather shocked we haven't had that philosophical debate yet.

Let the debate commence!

Azaaa.....too lazy someone more intelligent/better at debates do it for me.

What is there to debate?
When was the last time you lead a revolution?

Oh, right, last Wednesday, lol. I totally forgot. LOL

Does might make right?

I am every single revolution....I am Lenin, I am Castro, and I am Spartacus.

I have bad memory, so umm remind me.

Define.
But from what I understand of it: yes.
When the people uprise to throw down an oppressive government, is it not the purest moment of Democracy that there can be?

He was competent militarily, yes. As for leading a country he had very little competence.

I will have to review his leadership again to determine that.

From what I can see in the meantime, yes, he wasn't the right one to lead the country.
Then again, neither are most people, particularly former generals.

While people keep insisting "If I was in charge, it wouldn't be so bad", in reality, I think that most people would have no idea where to start.

And remember, most, if not all, revolutionaries rarely think about running the country once they get it. They are more occupied with ousting the current regime. The US, France, Libya, Egypt, etc. all got off on or are on shaky starts.

I am not saying that he wasn't bad, just that things are not as clear-cut as people put them to be. There is an enourmous amount of variables to factor in.

I don't think these 'blockades' are a good thing, and the motives of these aren't very supportive of humanity and good intent for the people either.

The blockades are a waste of time and do nothing to get the person out of power (in case of Cuba) and lead to more famines ( in case of North Korea)

Tyrant for those who have a brain and a hero for those who are brainless.