On the issue of whether two sides in a dispute are "morally equivalent," or even in the same region of morality.

False equivalence is a kind of fallacy that can be used to argue for various conclusions. Often that fallacy is used to defend unjust power; the article presents examples. The article also presents examples of false or misleading accusations of use the fallacy.

Was it better to be in Eastern Europe under the Soviet Empire than in Central America under US dominion? I think that depends on where and when. Stalin's rule also included massive arbitrary imprisonment and execution, sometimes almost at random, but he died in 1953 and after him the repression was less wild and brutal (but it was still repression).

I have a feeling that the term "genocide" is being stretched when applied to the repression in Guatemala. It was a crime against humanity, for sure; but genocide is something different. In order to be genocide, the killings would have to have been intended as a step towards _eliminating_ the Maya of Guatemala. Was that the army's intent? I don't know for ceertain, but the basis presented here seems insufficient to show that.