At the risk of generating open warfare on this site, I thought an official notice may be appropriate in order to bring all the South American commenters into the one place. General Augusto Pinochet was the classic military impresario and junta strongman. He booted out a democratically elected government and killed his enemies on a fairly large scale - about 3000 during his lengthy reign. However, this assessment is clearly over the top, although perhaps understandable:
‘He will go down in history alongside Caligula and Idi Amin as a byword for brutality and ignorance,’ says Chilean novelist Isabel Allende, niece of Salvador Allende, who killed himself during the September 11, 1973, coup that launched Pinochet’s dictatorship.
This assessment is probably fairer, but it ignores the fact that he killed those he was unwilling to persuade:
In the 1980s, he let US-trained economists guide the economy, selling off state companies and cutting government spending, which ushered in a decade of expansion in the 1990s. ‘It may take several future generations for people to understand my father and give him the place in history he deserves … and recognise him as a great man who gave everything for his country,’ Pinochet’s eldest son, also named Augusto, said in 2003.
These are family assessments. If we are to understand what happened in Chile (and what is now happening in Venezuela), we need to step beyond them. Pinochet was an autocrat in the classic South American tradition. Unusually, he did not practise economic autarky - the so called siege economy beloved of dictators on both the right and left. This means his legacy is dangerously mixed, and not one that can easily be categorized as good or ill.
3000 is a lot of dead - that’s how many died on 9/11, and we on the right (correctly) lambast leftists and Islamists who attribute those deaths to US foreign policy. I believe we must do the same with rightists who excuse Pinochet his crimes because the economy did well. That said, those on some parts of the left may wish to ask why Pinochet is all ill, while the perpetrators of other, more recent crimes are sometimes excused for their ills.
Over to you, Catallaxians.
UPDATE: An excellent sense of the Pinochet Paradox from The Wall Street Journal
385 Comments
A Pinochet post for you to squabble over…
There is no reason, no excuse or any self interest in supporting any dictator or terrorist.
Like I said elsewhere, avoid them (and try to normalise the lives of their citizens through free trade and asylum) or encurage them liberalise (like Qadaffi) but destroy them if necessary (as Qadaffi probably should have been).*
Sic semper tyrannis, left, right, Islamic or whatever.
*Why is it the US invaded Iraq, but not Lybia?
Marc Cooper nails it.
Nobody’s speaking up for the tax money Pinochet appropriated and squirrelled away to Switzerland, I notice. Who’ll speak up for the real desaparecidos: won’t somebody think of the stolen money?
I didn’t celebrate his life but I won’t celebrate his death either.
Hmm, just like Arafat.
Good question Mark. I often ask a similar one about Iran vis a vis Iraq. Wrong country, GWB.
‘*Why is it the US invaded Iraq, but not Lybia”
Because we’re in the business of looking after no. 1 i.e. ourselves, not engaging in altruism. We didn’t need to invade Libya because Gaddafi got chickenshit and turned over a new leaf.
I mean to say that Reagan would have been justified in invading and overthrowing Qadaffi.
By today’s standards of what happened in Afghanistan, he got off lightly.
The whole Pinochet/Allende debate amazes me, if only because so many people are completely unwilling to give an inch in any way. Like Jason, I didn’t cheer his life but I won’t cheer his death, but I also accept JC’s point that he was relatively small beans in the evil states. Pol Pot was in Cambodia at the same time, and various lefties were happy to make excuses for him at the time. Don’t know whether they still do, though.
The truth is that they are all evil bastards. They all pretty much committed genocide and should hang. They are not suitable allies for liberal democracies and it is not in our interests to pander to them. All we can do is encourage free trade and allow our citizens to take in refugees.
What on earth for? He was a butcher, and it’s as simple as that. Comparing him to other dictators in other parts of the world makes no difference whatsoever to what he did, who he did it to, and who helped him do it.
Don’t be daft people.
Quaddafi had largely come in from the cold by that time. After 9/11 he went to see the Americans. And assured them that he had changed his ways.
No evidence exists that Quaddafi had anything to do with 9/11 or with the support of the modern jihadist movement.
Totally unlike Saddam who was a massive and active supporter of Jihadism and for whom much evidence exists for his having a part in 9/11.
But in the case of Quaddafi not only would have it been senseless and bizzare.
It also would likely have been illegal if you take that sort of thing seriously.
Because whereas The US was already at war with Iraq she wasn’t at war with Libya.
I mean Quaddafi by that stage was out of it. Its a bit like asking why they didn’t attack Sweden.
Finally, Liam, that’s all you had to say.
Ultimately I agree with you, Mark & Liam, but I still find the meta around the whole issue interesting, along with the instransigence.
“What on earth for? He was a butcher, and it’s as simple as that.”
No he wasn’t. You are bullshitting. Where is your evidence for that?
No no. You must fucking explain why you are singling him out.
Now hurry up.
You are being a complete prick about this.
What do you know about the 3000 deaths. If it was all early on it looks like what would happen if you headed off a civil war quickly.
Communist thugs were already stealing farms and businesses by that stage.
So it sounds like it was almost as bad as in Zimbabwe.
If someone could come in and sort Zimbabwe out with only 3000 deaths you would be lying to call him a butcher just like you are lying now.
Well you might not be lying.
But if not explain why you are singling him out. Why you reckon he’s a butcher.
“No evidence exists that Quaddafi had anything to do with 9/11 or with the support of the modern jihadist movement.
No shit Graeme.
If s11 was enough to precipitate in the invasion of Afghanistan, then Lockerbie should have seen Reagan invade Lybia.
stop apologising for murderers, Graeme.
“They all pretty much committed genocide and should hang.”
No we’ll have none of this communist-equivalence tactic Mark.
The General did not commit genocide. Not even close. You are lying about this and letting the real gruesome killers off the hook.
No no I’m not apologizing for murderers. The others are.
Now what do people know about these 3000 deaths.
Your society is taken over by communists who steal farms and it only takes 3000 deaths to rectify the situation?
I’m trying to draw people out on this.
Why is Liam singling out or yet even blaming very much Pinochet for this.
What is your argument Jason and what do you know about the deaths?
He’s not notable for killing. He’s notable for getting rid of the communists with so few deaths and then returning his country to civilian rule.
Graeme, most of the time you have good stuff to say, but Jason is right about this. As I tried to flag in my post, I’m interested in the ‘meta’ around Pinochet’s death. You just can’t excuse someone for bumping off 3000 people, even if they were Collingwood supporters or whatever. It’s not okay.
My interest is in the leftist hatred of Pinochet compared to, say, Pol Pot, who was around at the same time and was far worse. That intrigues me, although I’m not sure why…
Look. I don’t know much about it. But it looks like the others don’t either.
So if they cannot tell me a little bit more about the 3000 deaths THEN WHY ARE THEY SINGLING HIM OUT.
This is just a commie-witch-hunt. This is a typical commie-witch-hunt. Or that is the way it seems.
There is no equivalence Graeme. We cannot actually punish some people for the magnitude of their crimes. Should have Stalin been executed or incarcerated 20 million times?
They are all guilty of treason, politically motivated and state orchestrated murder, genocide and countless crimes against humanity.
Hitler was not a better man than Stalin.
Pol Pot was not better than Hitler.
These dictators have no positives and no redeeming features at all.
They are all beyond the pale. Their ideology is irrelevant because it is anti-freedom and anti-humanist.
agree with Jase, Mark ,Liam etc.
no need to celebrate his life or his death
As usual, there’s enough hypocrisy on all sides to go around here. Allende was no Stalin and Pinochet no Idi Amin - both did enough stupid (in the first case) and wicked (in the second case) things to let them earn our scorn without risking a
Godwin’s law violation.
But I’m interested in this meme about the Chicago boys “fixing” the economy. The macro economy was highly unstable during Pinochet’s rule, and growth very unevenly distributed - the already wide gap between rich and poor became a chasm. I understood the period of broad-based, stable growth began only after he dumped the Chicago lot and pursued more moderate policies.
It’s true that there’s an arguable case to be made that the moderate policies worked because of the previous reforms, but strict monetarism and privatisation did not yield immediate dividends.
Look at this Map of Chile.
link
Look how long and skinny it is.
Imagine how easy it would be to supply communists from the outside if the General didn’t stop this sort of thing before it began.
See how easy it would be have been for the Soviets and for the Cubans to destroy that country if they had communist traitors on the inside.
It would have been as easy as it is now for the outside regimes to destroy Iraq.
Now before you commies start this commie-witch-hunt you are simply going to have to give us more information about who the general killed and how. Who, how and WHEN.
Was it those armed Allende thugs that had been stealing farms and businesses for example?
So you lynchers put that rope down and let that black man go.
And lets see some sort of explanation and more evidence.
“As usual, there’s enough hypocrisy on all sides to go around here. Allende was no Stalin and Pinochet no Idi Amin - both did enough stupid (in the first case) and wicked (in the second case) things to let them earn our scorn without risking a
Godwin’s law violation.”
No thats not right fascist.
Allende did appalling things. Not stupid. Appalling. And he didn’t get the opportunity to be Stalin.
But where is your dope on the General. No-one here has brought much in the way of evidence against him.
There is no hypocrisy on this side of the argument fella. I’m just pointing out that they are yet to make much of a case against him.
This is South American for fucksakes. South America in the 70’s. Not exactly an inherently stable place.
So far we would have to see him as someone who did really well and is no butcher.
Until we get some more evidence that is.
“It’s true that there’s an arguable case to be made that the moderate policies worked because of the previous reforms, but strict monetarism and privatisation did not yield immediate dividends.”
That’s probably always true - Howard can attribute some of his “15 years of uninterrupted economic growth” to Treasurer and PM Keating, re microeconomic reforms.
“Now before you commies start this commie-witch-hunt you are simply going to have to give us more information about who the general killed and how. Who, how and WHEN.
Was it those armed Allende thugs that had been stealing farms and businesses for example?”
Why take sides Graeme? It is a choice between Iblis and Ahriman.
The left on Pinochet (killed 3,000): Caligula and Idi Amin.
The left on Saddam Hussein (killed 500,000): necessary strong man, “illegally” removed from power.
Yawn, I’ll repeat my argument for you Currency, since you’re so perversely keen to morally relatively compare.
Dictator dead! Hooray!
“There is no equivalence Graeme. We cannot actually punish some people for the magnitude of their crimes. Should have Stalin been executed or incarcerated 20 million times?”
Sure. Just keep reviving the bastard.
“agree with Jase, Mark ,Liam etc.
no need to celebrate his life or his death”
Well of course you do. Thats because you are a commie-fascist. And very sick individual.
Now do you have any more information on this situation. Anything to back up your evident bigotry.
Because your agreement isn’t worth anything at all. And it would have been more pertinent to tell us what you had for lunch rather then just express your bigotry.
No fucking Liam you fucking commie-fucking-facist-idiot.
What is your case against the General.
You haven’t made a case yet.
There was probably more non-judicial killings in Rio during that time and they didn’t even have to get rid of the communists.
Make your case you fucking fascist.
“Dictator dead! Hooray!”
You aren’t fooling anyone here dude.
Its PINOCHET that you have a special aversion for. Pinochet.
Not dictators in general.
Now why is this the case commie?
Well yes, Liam, you can repeat your so-called argument as much as you like but the relativism is all on the left, sport.
To wit:
Pinochet: 3000 deaths - the Devil incarnate.
Saddam: 500,000 deaths - “strong man” who was - alas - needed for “stability”, his removal “unlawful” according to “international law”.
“Dictator dead, hooray”, sure - I’ll go along with that anywhere, vis-a-vis any tyrant. This differentiates me from lefties like that intellectually effete mediocrity Manning Clark who had an enduring soft spot for the most homicidal regime in human history: the USSR.
And that We Love Saddam argument has been made where, by who, o compere of compare? Not by me, sport.
Manning Clark? Watch out, long dead left-wingers, Currency Lad’s about to condemn your soft spots.
Manning Clark compared Lenin to Jesus Christ. He deserves whatever shite he gets thrown at him.
I’m pretty sure you’ve claimed that the war against Saddam was illegal haven’t you?
Its not hard to see where your North Star is commie.
Liam trivialises Clark’s love of homicidal psychopaths.
Case closed.
This is very very disturbing Liam.
Now whats the REAL reason you are dirty on the General?
Liam has gone on his last hissy fit and left the building guys. And frankly. I’m sick of the hypocrite. He makes an unfair comparison between Rafe and our pigheaded friend GMB and then when he gets called on it he leaves.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2201#comment-7619
And Graeme, just settle your score with FDB will you? He’s a good sport.
CL: Saddam: 500,000 deaths - “strong man†who was - alas - needed for “stabilityâ€
Alas, that was not the left’s position. That was the position of the US government and their allies for decades until it was politically expedient to flip flop. Remember John Howard saying Saddam shouldn’t be removed?
CL: his removal “unlawful†according to “international lawâ€.
Yes, that’s true, it was. Wars of aggression are considered the worst form of war crime since they encompass so many others by default. You can’t criticise opponents of the invasion on the basis of them being correct on this.
Jason, you’re being unfair with Liam with the apology crack he made. He wasn’t comparing Rafe to GMB at all, just making a (rather snide) meta comment on the intransigence of the average Catallaxy commenter. I think you went over the top on that one. Perhaps he has used up all his benefit of the doubt with you because of previous comments?
“CL: his removal “unlawful†according to “international lawâ€.”
No it wasn’t. Stop lying.
“Alas, that was not the left’s position. That was the position of the US government and their allies for decades until it was politically expedient to flip flop. Remember John Howard saying Saddam shouldn’t be removed?”
No fatfingers you are just talking shit.
This was NOT the American position that he ought not be removed.
You are talking utter crap.
The left’s position in the early twenty-first century was that Saddam should have been left in power for the sake of “stability”. The older and discredited arguments for stasis had all fallen apart or become obsolete. Long gone were the days when the likes of Gough Whitlam & Co could panhandle for money from Saddam’s Ba’ath Party. That didn’t matter to the left, however, because they wanted “another Vietnam” in order to get BusHitler.
There is, of course, no such thing as “international law”. If there was, Kofi Annan would have been voted out of office for presiding over two genocides in Africa.
Indeed, it would be fair to say that the incompetence of Kofi Annan killed more people than Pinochet ever did.
GMB, go here for evidence from the horse’s mouth.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
What intransigience.
The commie wouldn’t come up with any evidence.
This is the second time he’s staged a walkout on this topic simply because he was unable to come up with evidence for his contentions.
With respect, don’t overstate things vis-a-vis FDB, Jason.
He recently called me a spastic at LP and when asked to pull his head in (by Liam, I’d like to point out), he sarcastically went with “retard” instead.
Good sport? If you say so.
I’ve gone to that link and there isn’t even a skintilla of evidence for your bogus claim.
Here was your claim:
“Alas, that was not the left’s position. That was the position of the US government and their allies for decades until it was politically expedient to flip flop. Remember John Howard saying Saddam shouldn’t be removed?â€
All lies.
And not the least bit backed up by your link.
But I’m beginning to get more then just a little bit suspicious about this website.
Because it was the exact same website that that commie Liam used the last time Pinochet came up.
CL: The left’s position in the early twenty-first century was that Saddam should have been left in power for the sake of “stabilityâ€.
Sources, please.
CL: There is, of course, no such thing as “international lawâ€.
Wow. I know you’re not stupid, so why make a stupid comment like that?
CL: If there was, Kofi Annan would have been voted out of office for presiding over two genocides in Africa.
Yeah, ’cause the UN is all-powerful and responsibility for all crimes committed across the world can be laid at its door for not exercising its power to prevent those crimes.
GMB: not the least bit backed up by your link.
??? Did you read it all? Just one point from the many on the linked page:
“The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, “The United States finds the present Iranian regime’s intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations “
Well that statements right isn’t it?
Its just diplomatic talk from the State Department no doubt.
They helped Iraq because she was fighting their enemy Iran. Who held American hostages via proxies in Lebanon.
The above is merely diplomatic talk.
But it doesn’t imply what you said. They were at war against Iran.
Iran argues its case at the UN. The US representative argues its case back.
“The US representative argues its case back.”
Saying that Saddam was the legitimate government of Iraq that shouldn’t be removed, hence proving this statement by you
“This was NOT the American position that he ought not be removed.”
is utter crap.
Plus, that is just the start of it. I provided a quick link to get you started, but support for Iraq by the US was huge for decades and I can’t spend all day providing you with links you don’t read properly. Try wikipedia and go from there.
No it doesn’t mean what I said is utter crap.
Who made this claim and in what forum.
This is just arguing against the Ayatollah is all.
Its not a statement of American goals here.
Thats just bullshit.
If you follow enough Americans around and start editing what they say you can come up with any motive at all.
Who was this particular American. And in what context did he say it?
This sounds like a fraudulent site to me. Not inaccurate. It looks to be reasonably accurate. But it doesn’t look to be what it purports to be.
It purports to be some sort of official site for the US government.
The true essence of the left’s attitude to Saddamhere.
Two new stories in quick succession from earlier this year give a good example of “international law” at work:
Iran Leader: Israel Will Be Annihilated.
Iran elected deputy for Asian nations of UN Commission on Disarmament.
It was certainly not the American position that Iran dominate the region. You can be quite sure about that.
“Plus, that is just the start of it. I provided a quick link to get you started, but support for Iraq by the US was huge for decades and I can’t spend all day providing you with links you don’t read properly.”
No thats all bullshit. The support of the US government of Saddam’s Iraq was not HUGE FOR DECADES.
This is just you talking shit fatfingers.
All of it is just you talking shit.
They had a problem with IRAN you moron.
And Iraq happened to be fighting IRAN.
Got that dopey?
Fatso
So was US support of Stalin during WW2. What the fuck does that have to do with anything.
FDR sold middle Europe down the fucking river at Yalta, the prime reason we fought WW2.
I don’t want to hear this sordid filthy shit about the US supporting Saddam coming from leftists when the biggest leftist of them all gave away middle Europe to the murderous soviet slugs and there is never a wimper out of leftoids like you over this. In fact you hold FDR up as a great president.
So take you missives and shove them up the creek. The leftoid position is always at its weakest when preaching moral virtue;
Fatty, the United States was pragmatically allied with Stalin when that was necessary to defeat a more pressing enemy. Then, inevitably, the US turned on the Soviets. Same story with the Saddam versus the Ayatollah.
Yawn.
It was the left in our present day and age who objected most strenuously to Saddam’s removal from power. As he is now a convicted war criminal, it’s about time some lefty principals admitted they were wrong and apologised.
JC: So was US support of Stalin during WW2. What the fuck does that have to do with anything.
Nothing, JC. You brought it up.
JC: I don’t want to hear this sordid filthy shit about the US supporting Saddam
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
JC: In fact you hold FDR up as a great president.
I do? I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned the man, here or on any website at all.
GMB: No thats all bullshit.
Sez you. And you’re wrong. From Wikipedia (have you read the articles there yet? Didn’t think so):
“On 9 June, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC’s Nightline that “It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam’s Iraq into [an aggressive power]” and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.—
GMB: They had a problem with IRAN you moron. And Iraq happened to be fighting IRAN.
Yes, that was one of the reasons the US gave HUGE support for DECADES to Iraq. Got that, dopey? You can agree with their reasons for doing so, but you can’t simultaneously deny they did so!
No fathead.
You are just talking nonsense.
They weren’t supporting Saddam except that he was fighting with Iran.
He went to war with the enemy of the Americans.
Then the Americans supported him.
GOOD POLICY.
Thats what you do. That is how you save the lives of your own people and neutralise a threat.
So there is just no need for you to bullshit about this.
Now you distracted us from the ABSOLUTE FUCKING FACT THAT THE LEFT WANTED TO KEEP SADDAM IN POWER.
Its the left that wanted to do that.
You and Liam and the left-wingers wanted to do that.
So just stop your lying and admit your guilt in this matter.
Ok so have we got it yet?
It wasn’t the AMERICANS policy to keep Saddam in power.
It was YOUR POLICY to keep Saddam in power.
Your policy and the policy of other facists like Homer and Liam.
Now have we got that right yet?
Hey, lets get back with the program.
Pinochet was a product of his time - nasty right wing strongman in a continent where many similar to him existed. It was the height of the cold war, and Chile had just voted itself communist. The economy was out of control. The USSR and United States vying for influence - and the US prevailed, following Pinochet’s coup. Allende kills himself (probably with some assitance). But by Cold War standards, what happened in Chile was par for the course.
Was he an evil bastard ? He probably didn’t think so, saw the excesses of his regime as justified by the ultimate ends. This is where we must distinguish between dictators. There is night and day between your Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam types, and your lower grade dictator who represents the winning side in efforts to resolve insoluble domestic turmoil.
What if Pinochet didn’t launch his coup. Well, I suspect that after nationalising everything and impoverishing the country (viz Nicaragua), Allende would have been ousted by another General (Pinochet, presumeably, would have been given the boot). The difference would have been the relative level of economic misery that the poor were subjected to.
So Pinochet was no better or worse a person than all the other tinpot LatAm dictators of the 1970s - and, via the Chicago boys, at least left a legacy with some positives.
Why doesn’t the left engage in this handwringing when some former East German or other commie leader cark it ? Markus Wolf died the other day, and we didn’t discuss in this place what a certainly evil bastard he was !
“Now you distracted us from the ABSOLUTE FUCKING FACT THAT THE LEFT WANTED TO KEEP SADDAM IN POWER.”
They only seem to cheer when inncocents get jackbooted. They all thought FDR was great when he fucked Poland and the rest.
CL, David Cox’s article is not representative of the ‘left’, and is clearly identifiable as realpolitik, not leftist ideology. Try again.
And yes, international law is pretty suckworthy in parts. Still exists, doesn’t it?
CL: “It was the left in our present day and age who objected most strenuously to Saddam’s removal from power.”
WRONG! Gotcha! It was the method of removal that the left objected to, dummy!
Don’t start up with the false dichotomy of supporting the US’s illegal invasion or supporting Saddam, that is not a valid argument.
“Was he an evil bastard ? He probably didn’t think so, saw the excesses of his regime as justified by the ultimate ends. ”
Neither did Hitler, who thought he was struggling for the survival of the Volk.
Still an evil, misguided twerp.
Well said Spiv.
They would never cheer Marcus Wolfe departure to hell because deep down the left agrees with him. Fatso would think he was on their side.
I don’t ‘believe’ in international law either, ff. It’s heavily based on natural law and suffers from extremely awkward epistemelogical problems - my second Jurisprudence for Dummies post covers some of the issues.
Now everyone has decided to have a huge blue over Pinochet, I may stick up my Finnis post while CL is around so I can get input from someone who really knows his stuff on Catholic doctrine.
“WRONG! Gotcha! It was the method of removal that the left objected to, dummy!”
We should have sent a Gulfstream 5.5 to pick him up on his way to Hawaii
JC, I didn’t know who Markus Wolf was until a few minutes ago. Found that FDR quote of mine yet? Or are you going to stop chiming in with baseless non sequiturs?
Wolf was like the Commie’s Reinhardt Heydrich then?
A Gulfstream 5.5 to the ICC, more like.
This gives a sanitized but reasonably accurate precis of Markus Wolf. Heydrich is a fair comparison, ABL.
Well, I stuffed that link.
Mark Hill
If you cannot see the difference between Pinochet(old, Latin American, Catholic) and Hitler, then you really have a problem. Pinochet was a nasty piece of work, but in the end was on the right side (or at least fought against the wrong side). He was an anti-communist - in a century when Communism killed untold millions. Hitler was a psychotic, murderous meglamaniac, who destoryed the lives of millions, and destroyed his own society utterly. Against this, Pinochet’s 3000 dead, while not excusable, is in a whole different league.
Your inability to see the difference is appalling !
CL:
>WRONG! Gotcha! It was the method of removal that the left objected to, dummy!
Touche.
(Correction) FF to CL:
>WRONG! Gotcha! It was the method of removal that the left objected to, dummy!
Touche.
“Pinochet was a nasty piece of work, but in the end was on the right side (or at least fought against the wrong side). ”
No he wasn’t. Stalin was an anti-fascist, was he on the right side?
“Against this, Pinochet’s 3000 dead, while not excusable, is in a whole different league.”
Absolutely true. He should have been hung.
Jimmy
To Mark’s (ABL) defense…. i have been arguing with him over his issue all morning and can say he thinks all these guys are vermin. He just thinks that if you hang round with dogs you end up with fleas. I certainly think he appreciates the difference between them.
Its means to an end thing where we disagree.
Agree JC. I haven’t met too many libertarians who are into ‘immoral equivalency’.
And yes, international law is pretty suckworthy in parts. Still exists, doesn’t it?
So does astrology - which is significantly more serious. “International law” doesn’t exist as any form of meaningful force in world affairs.
The left unquestionably supported Saddam Hussein staying in office. That debate is closed. What we need to focus on is a new tragedy in the making as “international law” waits for everybody in Sudan to die so our UN “representatives” can get down to the important business of holding a conference on the subject.
…and choosing a suitable celebrity goodwill ambassador.
Sometimes the UN looks like a local council of a trendy inner city suburb with it’s feel good BS.
‘” so our UN “representatives†can get down to the important business of holding a conference on the subject”.
Do you mind if I edit this,CL , as I think it would be better…..
so our UN “representatives†can get down to the important business of sending in “peacekeepers”
who rape women and molest children.
what has Saddam got to do with PInochet’s death?
Something to do with international law, apparently.
International ‘law’, Mark
Kofi was a shocker. He would have to go down as the worst Sec. Gen of all time- Kurt excluded of course.
The guy is a stark raving moron .
He’s now whining that his pension isn’t big enough.He should have been fired without a pension long ago.
so it was the law that killed him and not his heart.
Would that make it a legal attack?
It has to do with it, Homer, because the left ostentatiously reviles Pinochet but was keen for Saddam Hussein to stay in office killing people in the name of “stability”. Their only solution was to continue the sanctions regime which killed 500,000 people by the late 1990s according to the Clinton administration’s own Secretary of State. Their other recommendation was to wait for “internal contradictions” to bring about regime collapse in Iraq. The resultant bloodbath would have made today’s chaos in Iraq look like the Eureka Stockade by comparison.
“what has Saddam got to do with PInochet’s death? ”
Don’t be a wise arse Homer. You followed the thread so you know the drill as why he was brought up.
Mark
I don’t disagree that Pinochet should have been hung, or preferably been given life and forced to sing the Internationale every morning before breakfast. I still contend there is a world of difference between him, and the A League monsters (Hitler, Stalin et al).
JC, I have been away for sometime since I made a comment.
The relationship is extemely tenuous.
Pinochet through a muderous coupt got rid of a democraticaly though miserably incompetent Government.
Hoiw Hussein ties in with this is beyond me.
For petes sake CL go away admit you got everything wrong about Iraq.
More people have died there since the end of the war than for the same period preceding it.
Like Long John Silver you don’t have a leg to stand on.
I agree jimmy. There is a difference. But JC summed up my thoughts pretty well.
BBCLB:
>For petes sake CL go away admit you got everything wrong about Iraq.
Touche again.
Nothing I’ve written on Iraq has been wrong, Homer. Saddam Hussein is in custody and has been convicted of war crimes. He’s now on trial for genocide. The left should help bring an end to divisions on this subject and expedite the healing process in our divided polity by apologising for supporting Saddam’s continuation in office.
Homer says:
“Like Long John Silver you don’t have a leg to stand on.”
But he did. It was the other leg that was a problem.
Now let’s have Castro for the sake of balance.
At what point did the war end in Iraq? When Bush clicked his ruby-red slippers together and wished it so?
Crap. With the Americans out of the way they would have been responsible for cleaning up their own mess: same with the Americans doing a smash-and-grab raid, removing Saddam and getting the hell out.
The problems arose because the Americans stuck around with no plan other than to get shot at. Leaving Iraqis to sort out their own problems was the only answer in 2003 and it’s the only answer that survives today, givig it the status of an Enduring & Unavoidable Truth.
“The left unquestionably supported Saddam Hussein staying in office. That debate is closed.”
Really? I say the left unquestionably supported Saddam NOT staying in office, but also didn’t like the idea of the US invading Iraq. Debate not closed, but I’m willing to leave it alone if you are.
“What we need to focus on is a new tragedy in the making as “international law†waits for everybody in Sudan to die”
Of course, we see those who habitually ignore international law doing…. wait, what is it they are doing? That’s right - nothing.
“The resultant bloodbath would have made today’s chaos in Iraq look like the Eureka Stockade by comparison.”
I’d say we are seeing almost exactly what would have happened if Saddam’s regime had collapsed without invasion, just delayed and also the combatant mix changed a bit by the presence of Americans.
Useful points to the debate as always, andy.
With the Americans “out of the way”, the left’s version of Iraqi regime change would have led to a slaughter of proportions even the Lancet’s socialist editors couldn’t fathom.
…smash-and-grab raid…
Thank you, Jack Bauer
Daniel, a word of advice: “touche” is uttered by one of the combatants, not the spectators.
For example, when terrorists attacked United States interests for several years, Bill Clinton’s usual response was “touche”.
“With the Americans “out of the wayâ€, the left’s version of Iraqi regime change would have led to a slaughter of proportions even the Lancet’s socialist editors couldn’t fathom.”
And you are basing that on what, exactly?
Of course, we see those who habitually ignore international law doing…. wait, what is it they are doing? That’s right - nothing.
I take it you’re talking about Kofi Annan.
Yeah, Kofi’s a known international law breaker. How can he get away with saying things like
“That is why States must unite in defense of the principles of the Charter and international law, while working to find ways to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for producing collective responses to the threats of our age…We must also strengthen the institutions we have to enforce the law in individual cases, so that those whose crimes are an affront to our common humanity and to world peace are brought to justice, and so that would-be violators are deterred.”
If international law is bunk, and useless in preventing genocide in Sudan, why aren’t your heroes in the US invading and deposing al-Bashir? What about Burma? North Korea? Etc and etc?
“Yeah, Kofi’s a known international law breaker.”
I wouldn’t bet against those odds Fatso.
“If international law is bunk, and useless in preventing genocide in Sudan, why aren’t your heroes in the US invading and deposing al-Bashir? What about Burma? North Korea? Etc and etc?”
Feasibility and cost benefits analysis. The same reason why Australia shouldn’t have gone into Iraq.
I’m glad that quote survived the shredder, fatty.
“Feasibility and cost benefits analysis.”
So that’s allowed for your mates, but not for those who want to uphold international law? Way to be consistent, dude.
Ok .
Define international law , fatso, as it applies to the discussion. Go!
I would just like to say Pinochet met a chile ending
“Go!”
Get your own catchphrase, JC.
No, as GB is quite happy to lend it to me when it’s used against you.
Now Go! Define international law, scooter. and no fudging or stealing. define it as it applies to this discussion. GO!
Can’t think up your own? OK then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law
CL:
>Daniel, a word of advice: “touche†is uttered by one of the combatants, not the spectators.
Of course. But I got tired of waiting for you to call it…;-)
“So that’s allowed for your mates, but not for those who want to uphold international law? Way to be consistent, dude.”
Okay ff, invade China for not being a free nation. Despite slowly liberalising, you can say goodbye to the slow death of nationalism there, peace, prosperity and hundreds of thousands of lives.
what sort of silly utopian are you, ff? who gives a shit about international law?
Pinochet was murdering coward, and a thief to boot. I am also sick of hearing how some ignoramuses still attribute Chile’s modest “success” when compared against the basketcases it shares the continent with, to Pinochet and the Chicago boys, when the fucking economy collapsed in the early 80’s and Chile was forced to adopt different policies in order to try and fix the chaos that erupted. It was only after these policies were implemented that Chile recovered. Economy aside, it’s irrelevant to what that bastard did. He didn’t just murder or “disappear” 3000 people. He systematically tortured tens of thousands, exiled close to a million, and had most of the people living in a state of fear for over 15 years. Pinochet vs Hitler is no contest in terms of numbers, but a murderer is a murderer. Two whores might ask for a different amount from their clients, but they’re still both whores.
“who gives a shit about international law?”
Anyone who wants a method of keeping war and genocide and horrible crimes to a minimum. I’m not saying that is what it does, though it helps.
What international law tries to aim for is a world where might does not make right. It mostly fails, but should we give up on it because of that?
And I didn’t bring it up. CL did when he mentioned the illegality of the Iraq invasion.
Now I agree with most of that. Except:
“I am also sick of hearing how some ignoramuses still attribute Chile’s modest “success†when compared against the basketcases it shares the continent with, to Pinochet and the Chicago boys, when the fucking economy collapsed in the early 80’s and Chile was forced to adopt different policies in order to try and fix the chaos that erupted.”
Just how did the Chicago Boys set up the collapse and what were the policies that led to recovery?
International law invites war ff. How else do you enforce it?
“what sort of silly utopian are you, ff?”
All utopians are silly. But we’re better than distopians in that our efforts, while never realisable, do make some difference.
Libertarians are utopians. So is anyone who works towards an ideal.
Me a utopian?
I’m a libertarian by default. Fundamentally optimistic about humanity but GMB had me pinned down perfectly in a past comment of his when he said I was more Stigler than Friedman.
“International law invites war ff. How else do you enforce it?”
You might as well say “Laws against criminal violence invites violence. How else do you enforce it?”
Of course, you might not have a problem with that reformulation either, in which case we disagree on a more fundamental level than can be resolved through blog arguments, if indeed it could be resolved.