10002. ScottLoar - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:13 PM PT
The Most Perfect Happiness This Week in the International Thread: Jenerator gets her big 1*0*!!
Anybody have sex this week?
10003. MrSocko - Oct. 22, 1998 - 9:36 PM PT
Congratulations, PTBoya,it appear that you have made it on to pseudopipsqueak's List! No more insults!
10004. MrSocko - Oct. 22, 1998 - 9:37 PM PT
... appears
10005. wexxford1 - Oct. 23, 1998 - 4:12 AM PT
You can't chatter about "The International Scene " without mentioning this amazing internationalist,little CIA director,George Tenet. Georgie sez CIA needed that extra $2 billion it received the other day because "another Pearl Harbor " may be cooking! Has the CIA turned into a branch of Hollywood?Little Georgie says he got his ideas about internationalism as a kid helping out in the father's Greek diner in NYCity.You see, keeping the morons marching needs comic staffing for the visible jobs. To ensure you know he's just another actor, Georgie keeps a big ,thick shillelagh on the coffee table of his office. .......Well, lookie here. George says he wants to "jumpstart" the biggest recruitement drive in CIA's history because the U.S. lacks the "brainpower and technology" to avoid surprises.Hyuh!Hyuh! Hyuh! (Yes, Louis J.Freeh, the FBI's director sez he patronized that Greek diner in Queens, New York, where the CIA boss got his early education.) The dumbing down of the CIA parallels the dumbing down of the press.Will CIA's recruitment drive fatten up intelligence ? Or have we another jobs program to keep the morons marching ? What fun.
10006. DanDillon - Oct. 23, 1998 - 5:54 AM PT
"Anybody have sex this week?"
Internationally? No.
10007. MrSocko - Oct. 23, 1998 - 5:59 AM PT
I know this is the wrong thread for these things, but I shall be leaving for San Fran in a few hours. Can anybody suggest the name of a good restaurant in Berkeley & any others in SF itself, particularly near Mission. Suggestions for Honolulu are also eagerly sought.
10008. stostosto - Oct. 23, 1998 - 9:24 AM PT
"OK, I would like to apologise to PTBoya for my various incivilities. I was just frustrated because I felt he was persistently misreading or disregarding or misunderstanding what I had been saying. No apologies, however, to anybody else I might have called an idiot this week."
Pseuder, thanks. I think it's so boring when you apologize. Heart-warming, but boring.
I, for one, was immensely amused when you described me as a slumbering hospital gown-clad floor-pisser. I am still intrigued. You know, I kind of thought everybody here saw me as an elegantly adroit athletic tap-dancer *slash* fleuret-fencer.
10009. marjoribanks - Oct. 23, 1998 - 9:30 AM PT
I agree with stostosto, there is nothing more boring than seeing patty-cake nice-nice statements between fraygrants who still obviously disagree.
Boya and Pseuder, kindly resume hostilities immediately.
10010. NickVanston - Oct. 23, 1998 - 9:31 AM PT
An important reason why Allende's Chile was in such an economic mess by the end was that the world price of copper -- then Chile's main export earner, and source of government revenue -- fell precipitously from the high levels of the late 1960s.
10011. stostosto - Oct. 23, 1998 - 9:38 AM PT
Pseudos
I would also, perversely, hand it to you that I think your take on Chile is interesting and enlightening.
I haven't changed my mind about Pinochet - fascist, murderous, terrorizing kind of guy - nor have you refuted such a view. (Which btw is pretty uncontroversial). You have not condoned these Pinochetian qualities either.
But I think this extensive debate has been fueled by a feeling that your heavy emphasis on what was wrong with the Allende government amounted to an apology for Pinochet. And I am not sure that this wasn't in fact the effect you were looking for.
That's why I love you so.
10012. marjoribanks - Oct. 23, 1998 - 9:55 AM PT
stostosto,
That's boring too.
BTW, you suck.
10013. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 23, 1998 - 9:57 AM PT
Message #10010
That assertion is basically literary and does not stand up to some simple arithmetic.
The price of copper fell from 64¢ in 1970 to 48¢ in 1972, and rose back up to 80¢ in 1973.
Moreover, the shortfall in government export revenue due to the fall in the price of copper cannot possibly account for the public sector deficits. The overall trade balance went from a surplus of 0.7% of GDP in 1970 to a deficit of 1.9% in 1973. The total public sector deficit rose from 2.7% of GDP to 30.1% of GDP. Now, given that copper exports accounted for something like 70% of Chile's total exports, do you think your claim is plausible?
No, Chile's economic debacle in 1970-73 had little to do either with the price of copper or, as I have already demonstrated, with U.S. actions. It was due overwhelmingly to Allende's own policies.
10014. CalGal - Oct. 23, 1998 - 4:28 PM PT
I always worry when Krauthammer makes sense to me. But this column seemed to make a good case for why the arrest was a bit much.
I'd be interested in any comments.
10015. cjb321 - Oct. 24, 1998 - 9:42 AM PT
I'll comment. I can't believe that anyone would object to a murderer like Pinochet being brought to trial for his crimes! This man is single handedly responsible for the disapearances (and therefore deaths) of over 10,000 people! Including some Spanish nationals, which is why of all the western countries Spain is the perfect place for his trial, and England, who cooperated with this leacherous excuse for a human being- one who still milks his country for gold, as he can no longer milk it for blood- is the perfect country to arrest him. What ever your feelings for Allende's leadership, whatever the economic mess he made of Chile, this does NOT, in any way lessen the extent of Pinochet's crimes against his and others countrymen.
10016. davidisimon - Oct. 24, 1998 - 10:01 PM PT
1/ If Pinochet is put in jail you will never again have a dictator leave office except with great bloodshed.
2/ Since we are all suddenly interested in putting current and past dictators in jail you had better set up a lot more courts.
3/ Where was everyone when Chile admitted Erich Honnecher?
4/ Anybody in Spain still around from the Franco regime? Why aren't they in jail?
10017. mariagleason - Oct. 25, 1998 - 10:31 AM PT
'4/ Anybody in Spain still around from the Franco regime? Why aren't they in jail?'
Because they still have a great deal of power. Spanish politics today cannot be divorced from a long historical tradition of corruption and extremism.
10018. Wombat - Oct. 25, 1998 - 4:50 PM PT
I doubt that many people who gave orders under Franco are still around. He died a long time ago, and had marginalized his more fanatical colleagues well before then. The worst of Franco's repression ended by 1950, anyway.
10019. mariagleason - Oct. 25, 1998 - 5:17 PM PT
Wombat,
Franco died in 1975; there are plenty of people of that era left around - entire families, if you will - and the transfer of power to Juan Carlos an arrangement, as I'm sure you know. Besides, the Falange is still a religion to some.
10020. mariagleason - Oct. 25, 1998 - 8:05 PM PT
An interesting article on Spanish politics for those who speak Spanish.
The author speaks of a Spain where democracy is still in *transition*, thanks to what he calls the 'periferal nationalistic parties' and the aftermath of forty years of dictatorship. (Date of publication was April, 1997).
Here is the entire site.
There is mention in the index of being able to translate into English via the Alta Vista translator, but I didn't try it.
10021. mariagleason - Oct. 25, 1998 - 9:20 PM PT
Falangistas on the web; the Falange (FE-JONS) party line.
10022. mariagleason - Oct. 25, 1998 - 9:58 PM PT
PseudE,
You must go to the Falangist site; they have a section for insults and threats!
10023. stostosto - Oct. 26, 1998 - 1:38 AM PT
maribank
Message #10012
What an exceedingly boring and unimaginative remark. You're too ridiculous to be offended by.
10024. stostosto - Oct. 26, 1998 - 2:41 AM PT
CalGal
Thank you for the link. I think Mr. Krauthammer puts it eloquently.
"Oceans away, in the post-colonial capitals not just of England and Spain but of the United States, armchair moralists seethe at such compromises. Craving the balm of easy justice, they invoke international law. "
I think it's all very strange that such a step should come from Spain. It looks much more like a thing that could happen in the - hitherto only - exaggeratedly law-obsessed country in the world, namely the US of A. I can't fathom why the Spanish government is putting on such a pathetic "it's out of our hands" attitude.
Pinochet has a lot to answer for. But let the Chileans decide how he should answer. Revenge for the sake of revenge may satisfy a natural and spontaneous craving for, well, revenge. But sometimes you have to think beyond such sentiments and figure out what the long-term consequences of acting on them will be.
I think a more constructive approach to dictators is to offer them some form of a golden parachute. Not that they in any way deserve it, but dictatorial regimes frequently turn nasty when they are fighting for life, liberty and property. Their humiliation should lie in people turning their backs to them, not in attempting to "get even".
By the way, contrary to Krauthammer, I usually credit Mikhail Gorbachev with pioneering the highly desirable innovation of bloodless and truth-seeking breaks with oppressive regimes of the past. Not that things turned out the way he would have wanted - he was a good communist whose project was to reinvigorate communism. But he pretty consistently pushed for freedom of speech, and abstained from violent clamp-downs on dissenting voices. He also enabled Russian historians to genuinely study the horrors of the past (though I don't think he actually put together a truth commission). He accepted the fall of communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and -
10025. stostosto - Oct. 26, 1998 - 2:52 AM PT
(10024 cont'd)
not least - East Germany which was even allowed to reunite with West Germany.
He was, as German commentator Hans Magnus Enzensberger has put it, a hero of retreat, inspiring orderly retreat elsewhere, much more than did Pinochet. Frederick de Klerk, at least, has always struck me as a very Gorbachevsque hero of retreat.
Gorbachev also enabled the retreat of dictatorial regimes in other ways. By letting go of the Soviet empire, he ended the cold war with its peculiar world embracing logic. This was an era where bad guys could seize and stay in power by claiming to prevent power seizure by people from the other side of the cold war front line. Thereby they would secure financial and military support from their superpower of choice.
Pinochet was a figure who fitted this logic neatly, and, coincidentally, he eased his grip on power in step with the Soviet retreat from Central Europe.
10026. marjoribanks - Oct. 26, 1998 - 7:16 AM PT
stostosto,
Wait! I can do better. Um, you double suck!!
BTW, 10024 and 10025 are excellent posts and I am inclined to fully endorse your "Pinochet has a lot to answer for. But let the Chileans decide how he should answer" except that it exactly mirrors the sentiments of Maggie Thatcher.
10027. NickVanston - Oct. 26, 1998 - 7:18 AM PT
PE, Message #10013, I don't want to bore FRAYtis with detail, but Allende did have very bad economic luck (as well as having even worse economic judgement). The price of copper had been between 60 and 70 cents per pound in the two years before he took power (November 1970), and it fell to under 50 cents per pound for most of the time he was in power. It started to rise in 1973, and got to nearly a dollar per pound a couple of months before he was killed (September 1973). Chile's export and public-sector revenues were abnormally low as a result under Allende. I never claimed that the low copper price was the reason for the public sector deficits: those mostly resulted from the nationalisation programmes and public-sector wage hikes.
Under Pinochet, the Chilean mining industry was modernised and improved to the point that US copper producers asked the Federal government to put a surcharge on imports from Chile, claiming "unfair competition". Their request was rejected.
10028. stostosto - Oct. 26, 1998 - 9:13 AM PT
marji,
Boring, boring, boring!
(Isn't it romantic?!)
10029. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 26, 1998 - 2:39 PM PT
Vanston (Message #10028)
I'm not sure how to reply to your irrelevant & redundant post, except to suggest that you haul in your "linguistically expert" wife again, as you did in the language thread. (I'm not sure why you should, but you should, all the same.)
You claimed in your Message #10010 that an "important reason why Allende's Chile was in such an economic mess by the end was that the world price of copper...fell precipitously...". And I demonstrated in Message #10013 why such a claim is, given some simple arithmetic, sheer nonsense.
You elaborate in Message #10027 that Chile under Allende had "very bad economic luck" as a result of lower world copper prices, and "Chile's export and public-sector revenues were abnormally low as a result under Allende".
Again, this is largely nonsense. The total public sector deficit rose by nearly 28% of GDP between 1970 and 1973! Even if the price of copper had DOULBED, rather than halved, between 1970 and 1973, a fiscal imbalance on roughly the same order of magnitude would have ensued.
"I never claimed that the low copper price was the reason for the public sector deficits...."
I should hope not. ¿¿¿But how pray tell should we take the falling price of copper as a significant manifestation of "economic bad luck", if not through the shortfall in government revenue from copper export earnings???
10030. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 26, 1998 - 4:53 PM PT
I too like Stostostostosto's Message #10024 and subsequent. (What the hell precisely does his moniker mean? Either "I stand I stand I stand" in Italian, or "hundred hundred hundred" in Russian.) However, two cavils:
1) Gorbachev wasn't quite pure of blood nor did he completely abstain from violent clamp-downs. What happened to the crackdown in Estonia in 1989?
2) And Gorbachev did not "let go" of the Soviet Union. There was nothing he could do about it.
10031. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 26, 1998 - 4:54 PM PT
Marzipranks should not be commenting on this issue at all. This impudent flamer has owned to cheering and weeping at Fidel.
10032. ajortiz - Oct. 26, 1998 - 6:00 PM PT
Going back to marjoriegleason's comments in 10017, i find it exceedingly hypocritical indeed for the Spanish to be taking any hand at all in the persecution of dictators, especially one so nearly indistinguishable from Franco himself.
A truly "conservative" Spanish government would rightly quash this absurd prosecution if only to spare itself the derision that would rightly follow from a deeper investigation of Spain's own fascist past. I feel that this Spanish government's fence sitting attitude can be best explained by it's apparent desire to be seen as "moderate". What with all the other Eurpoean governments being so fashionably lefty these days it's understandable that they wouldn't want thier true colors to come out as a result of such a garishly "close to the bone" scandal.
Another "thread" if you will. Those who are here being derided as "apologists" for Pinochet by cataloguing the deficiencies of the Allende government strike me as unnecessarily pusillanimous in thier own defense. Pinochet was an invaluable ally of the Capitalist West in the Cold War against Communist oppression and Kleptocracy. Those who would accuse Pinochet seem to have a blind eye towards the excesses of the varied "revolutionary" and "leftist" guerilla movements plaguing South and Central America even to this day. Ask the relatives of victims of the Tupac Amaru or the Sandinistas whether or not Pinochet was justified in stamping out yet another odious (though elected) leftist regime. Given enough time, Allende himself might be the subject of this debate rather than Pinochet.
10033. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 6:32 AM PT
Pseudissimo
Nice to know you are around to pinpoint omissions and imprecisms. The two you point out here are exactly the ones I *knew* you would point out. And if I wait a while you will probably also come up with the episode in Georgia in 1988 (I think it was) where special troops from the minister of the interior disbursed a demonstration by (and I've always been wondering about this) chopping into the mob with sharp-edged spades.
If you are looking for an apology for Gorbachev (and I guess I am), there are two variants possible. One, you might doubt that he condoned these acts, much less gave the order. Two, you might say that these episodes looked more like street-fighting between police and demonstraters than actual fullscale crackdowns. That is, *compared* to the force the Soviet superpower could have wielded - and, indeed had wielded repeatedly, even systematically, before (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Gulag, KGB), they are minor events. Beauty spots.
As for your second point, that Gorbie didn't let go of the Soviet Union, I didn't say he did. I said he let go of the Soviet *empire*, by which I meant the countries *outside* the Soviet Union where Soviet power held sway. I was imprecise.
Now, the Soviet Union was itself an empire, you might say - a Russian empire. But it was also a country in the UN sense, and Gorbie was its head of state. His resolve to retreat stopped at the borders of the USSR. He wasn't insensitive - or invulnerable, you might say - to the pressure for devolution, though. His response was to hold a plebiscite in March 1991 on the future of the USSR. In this, a sizeable majority of the Soviet population voted for the Union to stay together. There may have been opposing majorities within some of the republics, but I actually don't think so. At least not in the most important ones, Russia, Ukraine, and White Russia. The Baltic republics are a seperate matter. They had declared their independence at this time
10034. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 6:40 AM PT
Pseudissimo
Nice to know you are around to pinpoint omissions and imprecisms. The two you point out here are exactly the ones I *knew* you would point out. And if I wait a while you will probably also come up with the episode in Georgia in 1988 (I think it was) where special troops from the minister of the interior dispersed a demonstration by (and I've always been wondering about this) chopping into the mob with sharp-edged spades.
If you are looking for an apology for Gorbachev (and I guess I am), there are two variants possible. One, you might doubt that he condoned these acts, much less gave the order. Two, you might say that these episodes looked more like street-fighting between police and demonstraters than actual fullscale crackdowns. That is, *compared* to the force the Soviet superpower could have wielded - and, indeed had wielded repeatedly, even systematically, before (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, Gulag, KGB), they are minor events. Beauty spots.
As for your second point, that Gorbie didn't let go of the Soviet Union, I didn't say he did. I said he let go of the Soviet *empire*, by which I meant the countries *outside* the Soviet Union where Soviet power held sway. I was imprecise.
The Soviet Union was itself an empire, you might say - a Russian empire. But it was also a country in the UN sense, and Gorbie was its head of state. His resolve to retreat stopped at the borders of the USSR. He wasn't insensitive - or invulnerable, you might say - to the pressure for devolution, though. His response was to hold a plebiscite in March 1991 on the future of the USSR. In this, a sizeable majority of the Soviet population voted for the Union to stay together. There may have been opposing majorities within some of the republics, but I actually don't think so. At least not in the most important ones, Russia, Ukraine, and White Russia. (The Baltic republics are a seperate matter. They had declared their independence at this time and
10035. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 6:53 AM PT
(cont'd from 10034)
(The Baltic republics are a seperate matter. They had declared their independence at this time and refused to participate in the referendum).
Why, then, didn't the Soviet Union stay together? Well, the aborted coup against Gorbachev in August strengthened Boris Yeltsin, the already strong president of the rebublic of Russia. Contrary to Gorbachev, he was democratically elected. Yeltsin's powerbase was Russia, and by dissolving the Soviet Union, he gained sovereign power.
(Pretty abridged version of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I admit)
10036. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 6:55 AM PT
(cont'd from 10034)
(The Baltic republics are a seperate matter. They had declared their independence at this time and refused to participate in the referendum).
Why, then, didn't the Soviet Union stay together? Well, the aborted coup against Gorbachev in August strengthened Boris Yeltsin, the already strong president of the rebublic of Russia. Contrary to Gorbachev, he was democratically elected. Yeltsin's powerbase was Russia, and by dissolving the Soviet Union, he gained sovereign power.
(Pretty abridged version of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, I admit)
10037. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 6:57 AM PT
SORRY ABOUT THE DOUBLE-POSTING! MY ****** COMPUTER IS ROTTENING BEFORE ME!!!!!!!!
10038. Wombat - Oct. 27, 1998 - 12:20 PM PT
Maria:
Nazism is still a religion to some, as is communism. That does not mean that they are any less marginalized in democratic Spain.
Arrangement or not, when King Juan Carlos stood up to the Spanish military during the abortive coup in the 70s, he demonstrated that Spanish parliamentary democracy was stronger than it was before Franco.
10039. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 2:31 PM PT
Wombat,
you are right about Juan Carlos. He is a man of honour. But the attempted putsch was in 1981.
10040. mariagleason - Oct. 27, 1998 - 2:36 PM PT
Wombat,
There is no 'democratic' Spain as such; they're still getting there, as even the left admits. And though the FE-JONS may have been marginalized from political life, they are not the whole story.
Why no arrests of Falangistas?
10041. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 2:54 PM PT
Pseud
Message #10030
"Gorbachev wasn't quite pure of blood nor did he completely abstain from violent clamp-downs. What happened to the crackdown in Estonia in 1989?"
What crackdown in Estonia in 1989? I think you must be thinking of the attack on and occupation of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. This took place in January 1991 and lasted for a week.
While we are at it: The Georgian episode was in April 1989, in Tbilisi.
And, finally, there was one more major bloody episode under Gorbachev, namely in Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, January 1991. Here, Soviet troops committed a sin of omission, sitting idly by, while there was a pogrom on Armenians going on. (Reminding of the tactics used by the Red Army in 1944 outside Warsaw as the Germans crushed the uprising of the Polish resistance).
Gorbachev distanced himself from all three events, though it seems unlikely he didn't have any knowledge of them. In any case, he doesn't look too good in these instances. Still, they didn't amount to anything like Hungary 1956.
10042. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 2:55 PM PT
Pseud
Message #10030
"Gorbachev wasn't quite pure of blood nor did he completely abstain from violent clamp-downs. What happened to the crackdown in Estonia in 1989?"
What crackdown in Estonia in 1989? I think you must be thinking of the attack on and occupation of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. This took place in January 1991 and lasted for a week.
While we are at it: The Georgian episode was in April 1989, in Tbilisi.
And, finally, there was one more major bloody episode under Gorbachev, namely in Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, January 1991. Here, Soviet troops committed a sin of omission, sitting idly by, while there was a pogrom on Armenians going on. (Reminding of the tactics used by the Red Army in 1944 outside Warsaw as the Germans crushed the uprising of the Polish resistance).
Gorbachev distanced himself from all three events, though it seems unlikely he didn't have any knowledge of them. In any case, he doesn't look too good in these instances. Still, they didn't amount to anything like Hungary 1956.
10043. stostosto - Oct. 27, 1998 - 2:59 PM PT
Sh*t!!!
About the double posting. (It is alright with JoeT to say sh*t).
10044. stostosto - Oct. 28, 1998 - 2:47 PM PT
mariagleason Message #10040
Why isn't Spain democratic?
What is your definition of democracy?
10045. ajortiz - Oct. 28, 1998 - 4:38 PM PT
STO,
Allow me. Although I am perhaps not quite as close to the situation as gleason, maybe I can cast some perspective.
The current "parliamentary" system in Spain was set up by the Fascist Chieftain Franco as a rubber stamp assembly, much as the one in Mexico.
It owes it's existence to the support of an "oligarchy" if you will, of powerful and connected families within the old Monarchist & Fascist ruling classes, and as such rarely considers anything which would seriously harm thier interests.
Again as in Mexico, the system is gradually becoming more transparent, as I believe it was meant to.
For all his brutalities and shortcomings, you have to give Franco credit for foresight. he kept Spain safely out of WWII, and nurtured the longest lived unabashedly Fascist regime in Europe. Say what you will, he has been vindicated by the amazing industrial and cultural renaissance of Spain. The Spain that he nurtured and protected (from itself).
10046. mariagleason - Oct. 28, 1998 - 5:12 PM PT
Why, thank you, ajortiz. Well said.
10047. ScottLoar - Oct. 28, 1998 - 5:53 PM PT
Franco kept Spain safely out of WWII? I remember an allusion to bribery when Winston Churchill mentioned something about a "terrible price" paid to Spain to keep them from entering the war with their fellow fascists. Can anyone confute or confirm so?
10048. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 28, 1998 - 7:25 PM PT
I doubt that. One of the more amusing episodes of the Second World War had Franco and Hitler meeting in Biarritz after the fall of France. Hitler was quite intent on inducing the old rascal into declaring war on the British, but the mulish Spaniard just wasn't the fool Mussolini was. He made such impossible territorial demands that Hitler just had to refuse. After the meeting, Hitler recorded for posterity, "I would rather have my tooth pulled than have to go through that again". (or some such).
10049. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 28, 1998 - 7:35 PM PT
Having looked for but unable to find the exact quote in German, I recall Hitler's lament was more like "I would rather have three or four teeth yanked out than go through that again" with Franco.
10050. mariagleason - Oct. 28, 1998 - 7:36 PM PT
Great post, PseudE.
The bio on Franco that came out a few years ago has Franco advising a German functionary who had been summoned home to stay in Spain and ride the war out because the Germans were sure to lose.
10051. CalGal - Oct. 28, 1998 - 10:49 PM PT
English Courts Rule that Pinochet should be set free.
(NY Times requires registration.)
I wonder if the British judges were worried about the ramifications of British politicians in, say, Ireland had they ruled otherwise. Still, I think it's the right call.
10052. cartman69 - Oct. 28, 1998 - 11:08 PM PT
Unfortunately, it *is* the right call. The Spanish should have been more judicious with what they charged Pinochet with. I suppose they went with genocide because they figured it had to trump his diplomatic immunity.
10053. CalGal - Oct. 28, 1998 - 11:19 PM PT
The real problem, I think, is that they had no business charging him with anything. Emotionally satisfying to many, I suppose. But if I understand it, very bad law.
It has been interesting following this. I grew up in California in the late 70s and the word Pinochet was never spoken, it was spat. He was one of the South American dastardly dictators and his evil must be stopped. Not being particularly interested, I just filed him away as "rotten evil bastard" and never thought much about it again until he left office, when I was surprised to see how it all ended so peacefully.
And then following this thread, I started reading up on it a bit more. And lo! Pinochet, in relative terms, isn't quite the rotten evil bastard I was taught about in my teens. I love it when that happens.
10054. cartman69 - Oct. 28, 1998 - 11:30 PM PT
An old Arab saying goes something like, "It is not the sultan one must fear, but the sultan's dogs." This is true with Pinochet as well. He didn't drag all those people to the stadia and shoot 'em in the back of the head. Someone on his payroll did. If he's to be held accountable, so should they all.
Don't kid yourself Cal. Pinochet may be someone's grandpa, but he's someone's grandpa who made sure that anyone who fucked with him got yanked off the street and summarily executed. He's not Stalin, but he's not even close to being innocent. He's still a killer.
10055. CalGal - Oct. 28, 1998 - 11:35 PM PT
Good heavens. I didn't mean to make it sound like he was a grandpa. Of course he was a baddie. You'd have to understand *how* evil he was portrayed to me in my teens to understand what I meant. I got the impression that Hitler was worse, but not by all *that* much. Typical 70s overstatement.
10056. cartman69 - Oct. 28, 1998 - 11:55 PM PT
Cal:
I know what you meant. I remember the 70s too, and how everyone was trying to suss out the "next Hitler" before it happened. So everyone from Pinochet to Pol Pot got the label, though no one has ever come anywhere near Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
10057. stostosto - Oct. 29, 1998 - 3:16 AM PT
cartman69,
I'd say Pol Pot qualifies easily. Not only if you count the dead (which are in the millions), but also his monumentally insane ideas of de-modernizing the country by the use of unfettered brutality.
10058. stostosto - Oct. 29, 1998 - 3:33 AM PT
Here in Europe, the hangovers from the 70s have more to do with how many intellectuals idolized Pol Pot, not how many mistakenly lumped him together with Pinochet in the "almost-as-bad-as-Hitler" category. In the 70s, you didn't distinguish between "good guys" and "bad guys". It was more a question of "bad bad guys" vs. "good bad guys". Cf. what I said about the logic of the cold war.
10059. stostosto - Oct. 29, 1998 - 3:40 AM PT
Pseud Message #10049
Perhaps Hitler said:
"Ich möchte lieber drei oder vier Zähne ausgerückt haben, als nochmals das erleben sollen!"
10060. marjoribanks - Oct. 29, 1998 - 6:59 AM PT
Yes, Pol Pot certainly qualifies for a seat at the table consisting of this century's very worst "leaders." Stostosto's description of his policies is accurate.
Also, I think Milosevic is coming closer and closer to earning his own place at that table.
10061. marjoribanks - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:23 AM PT
Do you invest in the emerging markets?
If so, check this out.
10062. stostosto - Oct. 29, 1998 - 1:45 PM PT
ajortiz, maria
thanks for the reply.
ajortiz, you said Message #10045
"The current "parliamentary" system in Spain was set up by the Fascist Chieftain Franco as a rubber stamp assembly, much as the one in Mexico."
Well, nothing wrong with that, necessarily. Many, perhaps most, parliaments have historically been set up by authoritarian rulers who felt a need to roll with the punches of popular pressure for sharing in the power. Once there they have typically worked to strengthen their position, and this has often been a successful strategy. The European Parliament of the EU is a case in point. It has been described and ridiculed as a "Mickey Mouse" parliament (Maggie Thatcher), but is gradually extracting more and more concessions from the EU executive (the Commission). Other examples are the Russian Duma before 1917, the German Reichstag under Bismarck, and various Asian countries. It was this mechanism the British hoped to establish by installing the Legco in Hong Kong - only this was more or less devised to bother the Chinese more than the outgoing British.
You also said:
"It [the Spanish parliament] owes it's existence to the support of an "oligarchy" if you will, of powerful and connected families within the old Monarchist & Fascist ruling classes, and as such rarely considers anything which would seriously harm thier interests.
This is completely new to me (who am admittedly not very knowledgeable about Spain). But just how can this "oligarchy" influence parliament? I mean, which sanctions would they be able to impose? On parliament? (As opposed to withdrawing financial support from particular candidates or parties, which is a well-known feature of every parliamentarian system).
I am not saying you are wrong, it is just completely new to me, and I think it sounds fantastic.
10063. cartman69 - Oct. 29, 1998 - 6:34 PM PT
stostosto, marjori:
Certainly Pol Pot was a genocidal monster, and his policies possibly even more insane than Hitler's. I was just commenting on the numbers. Pinochet, bad as he was, obviously wasn't nearly as bad.
10064. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:21 PM PT
For whom?
10065. CoralReef - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:25 PM PT
For the million or more that weren't killed that would have been if Pinochet had been a Pol Pot.
If Spain is concerned with genocide I suggest they take a more active interest in the Balkans than they have been doing. If it's symbolism they are interested in, they should refrain from paving over Garcia Lorca's memorial to make a soccer field.
10066. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:34 PM PT
'Your honor my client, the dapper serial murderer here before you with the cute moustache, killed only ummm… three or four thousand people. A mere bagatelle.'
Hey… nobody's bad compared to Hitler. This whole argument is humbuggery.
10067. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:41 PM PT
Oh now we have a variation on the theme…
'Your honor, just think of what my client could have done? But no, he honorably stopped far short of Pol Pot's achievements… errr dastardly deeds.'
In fact, let's empty all the jails. Yeah, that's it. Nobody compares to Hitler and Pol Pot. That nice kid who bombed the Murrah building, why he only killed about a hundred fifty folks. A tenth of a bagatelle.
10068. mariagleason - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:46 PM PT
American left-leaners are so impossibly naïve.
10069. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:51 PM PT
Yeah! It's so naive to hold that justice is important. We should all just accept moral relativism. Hey, if Bill can get away with Monicagate, Pinochet should be allowed to sow a few wild oats too. No?
10070. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 7:54 PM PT
But there are exceptions though. Castro should be strung up by the .......................................... fingernails, right? Pinochet was, after all, just getting rid of a few pesty leftists. Vermin.
10071. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 29, 1998 - 8:14 PM PT
If the people and the democratically elected government of Chile have reached an accomodation with Pinochet and the past he represents, why is it the business of Spain to tamper with that arrangement and prosecute him for crimes which have nothing to do with Spain? (I'm not talking about the killings of Spanish nationals.)
Is there a precedent for Spain's attempt to prosecute Pinochet? I don't think so. The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals obviously don't count. The Hague indictments of Serbian war criminals don't count either.
10072. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 29, 1998 - 8:19 PM PT
Message #10070
Oh please. The hypocrisy that Krauthammer pointed out has to do with the fact that many who call for Pinochet's prosecution, not only do not call for the prosecution of the likes of Castro, but also excuse him, fête him. Our very own Marzipranks has even wept and cheered before Castro.
10073. mariagleason - Oct. 29, 1998 - 8:19 PM PT
The American left has a long history of holding on tight to its blinders. Remember Uncle Joe?
I spit on Castro, naturally, because I have a personal stake. Do I want to see anything happen to him? Nah. He's done his worst; let him die the capitalist he's been forced to become.
10074. mariagleason - Oct. 29, 1998 - 8:35 PM PT
Yes, very true, PseudE. 'Justice' ought to be administered to Pinochet, while Castro is a poor victim of the US.
10075. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 29, 1998 - 8:49 PM PT
The international legal standard for ex-dictators who have committed atrocities should be to leave them to be dealt with by their national governments. International tribunals or other countries should seek to prosecute them ONLY 1) if the national government refuses or fails to deal with the past; or 2) if the accomodation has no popular mandate (e.g., because the government is not democratically elected).
10076. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:05 PM PT
I don't disagree with your legalistic approach PE. My comments are in response to a tendency here to mitigate the immorality of Pinochet's acts by resort to idiotic comparisons to the heavyweights of evil. About some forms of evil there can be no carping. This is not stealing a loaf of bread for your poor children. It is murdering political opponents, most of them on the basis of their ideas alone.
Whether or not Spain has the right to extradite Pinochet for crimes he has undoubtedly committed, I will gladly let the courts decide. Though it seems to me that the British judges were slippery wrt Nuremberg precedents in this case. The same body of law has after all been used as the basis to try Serbians for lesser crimes… if one judges by body count alone as seems to be the take of some herein.
10077. AdamSelene - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:09 PM PT
PE,
I agree. If we don't recognize independent sovereignty of other nations and the subsequent right and responsibility of their citizenry to deal with their internal problems then we dishonor our own legal foundation.
10078. AdamSelene - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:11 PM PT
Of course, when other sovereigns directly impinge upon our own principled self interest, all bets are off.
10079. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:15 PM PT
Nonsense…
If we break the laws of our own sovereign nation beyond our borders, then those laws are rendered first suspect, then eventually worthless. All this trauma about having auslanders ever judge us is telling.
10080. mariagleason - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:16 PM PT
Castro's crimes are of a far greater magnitude than Pinochet's, and he's lasted for close to 40 years. I do not refer to numbers killed, although the body count easily beats Pinochet's. Castro not only murdered political opponents, but even compadres whom he deemed too popular, and thus, a threat. This does not take into account the numbers of 'anti-revolutionaries' who were dispossessed of everything they had, even if it was close to nothing. He has starved his own people for most of his dictatorship, yet some here consider him a hero. Idiocy?
10081. AdamSelene - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:18 PM PT
ptboya,
If your "nonsense" was directed at 10078, then you misunderstood me. It is not breaking the laws of our own sovereign nation to, for example, punish Hussein for sending terrorists to our shores.
10082. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:20 PM PT
Selene (Message #10077)
I don't much care about sovereignty issues or the integrity of international law, but I am interested in workable arrangements.
Boya (Message #10076)
"Though it seems to me that the British judges were slippery wrt Nuremberg precedents in this case. The same body of law has after all been used as the basis to try Serbians for lesser crimes."
I'm not sure I understand the point.
10083. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:20 PM PT
Yes maria… with this I agree. Dictators, all, should be judged on the same set of scales. Knowing your history, my original comment was prompted by hopes you could perhaps see your way clear to the concept of evenhanded justice. But what you've done is interpret my post as approval of Castro. Go figya.
10084. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:22 PM PT
Sorry Adam…
Slow typing I guess. My response was to your prior post.
10085. mariagleason - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:31 PM PT
ptboya:
I thank you for your efforts on my behalf, but you have no knowledge of my opinions regarding Pinochet, his tenure as dictator, or what I think of his actions.
For the record, I am the only Cuban I know of who is not a Repug. I think that all dictators are cut out of the same cloth. I also think that Spain has no business butting in on Chile's affairs when her own house is far from being in order.
Because I am Cuban, you made certain assumptions about me; I think your posts speak for themselves as regards what you consider 'evil' and what you are willing to tolerate.
10086. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:39 PM PT
No, not because you are Cuban, maria. I know enough Cubans to refrain from pigeonholing. Besides it's not my style. You forget, I heard some of the particulars of your story. So I judge on that basis. Unless I have the wrong maria in mind.
10087. ptboya - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:44 PM PT
I need to go now but maria…
"I think your posts speak for themselves as regards what you consider 'evil' and what you are willing to tolerate."
You misread my posts I think. I'm not very tolerant of violent acts. I don't excuse those on the left any more than those on the right, any impression you've received to the contrary notwithstanding.
Anyway; peace and goodnight.
10088. mariagleason - Oct. 29, 1998 - 9:45 PM PT
ptboya
You think you can pigeonhole me because you heard some particulars of my story? I made no mention of my politics at all, but they're not a secret here in the Fray. Ha, I even oppose the embargo!
If you think that I am any sort of right-winger because of my experiences, you are completely and utterly mistaken.
10089. cartman69 - Oct. 29, 1998 - 10:27 PM PT
ptboya:
Message #10064, etc. -- Pinochet is indeed a murderer. So maybe he should be tried for murder -- in Chile. Spain has no business doing what they're doing; it's quite a semantic feat to bill Pinochet under the crime of "genocide". If they want to make a point, there are better ways to do it.
10090. ptboya - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:35 AM PT
Well perhaps Spain should preempt such niceties as extradition proceedings and use extrajudicial means. This has been very effectively employed by the US wrt to Noriega and to some extraterritorial snatchings of drug suspects in Mexico. It was used by Israel against Eichmann and others. Pinochet himself reached across borders to simply off his opponents, some on the spot, others brought back to Chile first before disappearing. 94 such cases are cited in the Spanish warrant. No, imo, the Spanish are handling this in the most effective way possible. They are relying upon the rule of law to make their case rather than the rule of the jungle.
10091. ptboya - Oct. 30, 1998 - 5:59 AM PT
maria…
Given the opportunity last evening to have the last word you chose, even after my explanations as to my meaning and your misinterpretations, to bow out ungraciously.
I could care less whether you are a leftist or a rightest. That concern seems to be yours alone. And it was there from your first post I read…
"American left-leaners are so impossibly naïve."
Now, I have no way of determining who you were addressing there. But I'd say it qualifies as pigeonholing.
And then you go on to say…
"The American left has a long history of holding on tight to its blinders. Remember Uncle Joe?"
In fact, I agree with this latter statement. But, check my posts. You will not see the word "rightest" anywhere. The reason I would not so blithely pigeonhole you or any other person subjected to exile is that I've discerned no political pattern amongst the families of those others I've personally known. These have included: several Cuban families, a Czech family, Estonians, Hungarians, Russians, Cambodians and Americans in Canada during and after Viet Nam. In my experience, the exile status of these people does not fix their political affiliations to any predictable degree. And this is even more true amongst their children.
I think you're projecting. In the words of old blue eyes… "baby you're accusin' me of what you're doin' yourself."
10092. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 6:59 AM PT
If you check the time-stamp, ptboya, you'll see that we posted at virtually the same time. I did not bow out, not even 'ungraciously' - I stopped posting to go to sleep. This is my first viewing of your last post last night.
Were I to pigeonhole someone, I'd make sure to include his/her name. What I said about the American left was a reaction to the brouhaha over Pinochet, a man who has more than enough companions to match or surpass what he wrought during his tenure as dictator of Chile. You, however, were quick to get personal over Castro. I'd say that says a bit more than you intended. In an earlier post you told me that you'd heard 'some of the particulars' of my story, and that you 'judge on that basis'. Which is it to be, then, pigeonholing or not?
Pinochet has any number of companions world-wide who have matched or surpassed what he wrought in Chile during his tenure as dictator. I hear no outcry for any of the others to be brought to 'justice', just Pinochet - an excessively hypocritical stance. Not only that, but after all the bleating about Allende having been a democratically elected leader, I'd think that the same consideration would be given to another democratically elected Chilean leader, one who emphatically does not want interference in his country's internal affairs.
Hearing you complain of 'pigeonholing' as regards my very mild comments about the American left is hilarious, given what's been said in this thread.
10093. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 7:11 AM PT
1) I admired Castro's rhetoric at the 1992 Earth Summit. Given the context of the final day and the banalities uttered by other world leaders, his speech was quite electrifying. I refuse to apologize for clapping heartily, Bush did, everyone else did.
2) Castro's government in Cuba can be blamed for many many ills. However, there are several things it has done for its people that should rightly be considered spectacular successes. Cuba's human development indicators regarding the relative status of women, access to primary health care, and access to education are among the very highest in the developing world.
3) As far as I am concerned, and as far as I know, Cuba's most resounding success has been in race relations. Given the situation in nearby islands and in the great neighbors up North, Cuba could/should even be seen as a role-model in this regard. I recently had dinner with an old colleague of mine, a pioneering African-American journalist who made his first trip to Cuba this year at the age of 75. He confirmed this view unequivocally, going so far as to say that Cuba was as close to a race-blind society as he had ever encountered. Surely the Communists can be given some credit here.
4) Castro is no hero to the American left. You want to see him idolized and lionized? Check out the rhapsodic French reaction to him.
10094. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 7:38 AM PT
1) Castro's rhetoric can be very moving. In light of his actions, however, one must recognize that all he does is talk the talk.
2) 'Cuba's human development indicators regarding the relative status of women, access to primary health care, and access to education are among the very highest in the developing world.'
Cuba was not part of the 'developing world' until Castro smashed it to pieces. The fact that a large portion of the middle and upper classes fled Cuba and aided this process is his own fault.
3) Batista himself was an African-Cuban. He'd served as a duly elected leader before he decided that being a dictator was much nicer.
4) Castro is no hero to the American left now that he's turned to capitalism to solve his problems. He most certainly was a hero to the left for much of his tenure as dictator.
10095. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:02 AM PT
Sprite,
1) I disagree that Castro only talks the talk. In race relations, womens emancipation and medical care he has impressively backed up his statements. Well, I do agree that the sheer grandiosity of his rhetoric "I want to make Cuba the greatest medical power in the world" is a bit silly, but then he has followed through to quite a remarkable extent.
2) It is true that pre-Castro Cuba was robust economically. However, since it featured a resolutely feudal society, and what Martha Gellhorn describes as "apartheid-like" circumstances, I think it a bit much to say that "Cuba was not part of the 'developing world' until Castro smashed it to pieces."
3) Batista may have had African blood in him. The fact is that Cuba has become far far more racially integrated under Castro than ever before, to the point where it is arguably the best integrated multi-racial society on the planet.
10096. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:18 AM PT
1) Can you prove any of what you say Castro has accomplished? There is a tremendous amount of medical support that flows from exiles in this country, including necessary medicines that are just not obtainable in Cuba. These are not cutting-edge medications, either.
2) What do you know about the 'resolutely feudal' society in Cuba? Yours is the first reference in this sense that I have ever come across. In ''apartheid-like' circumstances' a Batista would never have been elected. What conditions do you consider necessary for being a part of the ''developing world''?
3) The process of integration is always sped up by utter abject poverty.
10097. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:23 AM PT
The WHO keeps excellent databases on health care. I recommend checking out the statistics on Cuba, especially for essential things like infant mortality, then checking the same statistics for countries like Mexico, Argentina and Chile. You'll see that Cuba has a startling profile, comparing to the very best in the hemisphere.
10098. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:34 AM PT
As for point 2, I admit that my knowledge of Cuba is not first hand. I read pretty much whatever I get my hands on and I particularly rely on Martha Gellhorn's accounts of pre and post-Castro Cuba. Why Martha Gellhorn? She's one of my favorite writer/journalists with vast international experience, I trust her analysis implicitly, and she has always been clear-eyed and non-ideological. Further, she lived for years in Havana (with Hemingway) and returned there after decades to write several essays.
She reports (for instance) that in her years in pre-revolution Havana she rarely saw a black person, that the majority of blacks on the island were poor and concentrated on the Eastern part of the island where they eked out a living working in the cane fields. In a Granta article published in the late eighties entitled Cuba Revisited she says " A form of apartheid prevailed in central Havana" and even , startlingly, "I had never thought of Cubans as blacks."
Also, your point 3 is wrong IMO. Integration is never aided by utter abject poverty.
10099. mariagleason - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:41 AM PT
Infant mortality is but one indicator (I found the statistics). What happens to those infants when the medications they need are not available to them is a concern too, and this cannot be blamed on the US embargo, as much as I oppose it.
10100. marjoribanks - Oct. 30, 1998 - 8:48 AM PT
WHO stats on Infant Mortality (per thousand live births):
Guatemala: 54
Mexico: 36
Chile: 15
Brazil: 54
Argentina: 24
Cuba: 9
Canada: 6