catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Pinochet dead

with 385 comments

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

Advertisements

Written by Admin

December 11, 2006 at 10:34 am

Posted in Uncategorized

385 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. A Pinochet post for you to squabble over…

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 10:37 am

  2. 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?

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 10:40 am

  3. 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?

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 10:40 am

  4. I didn’t celebrate his life but I won’t celebrate his death either.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 10:41 am

  5. Hmm, just like Arafat.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 10:42 am

  6. Good question Mark. I often ask a similar one about Iran vis a vis Iraq. Wrong country, GWB.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 10:44 am

  7. ‘*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.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 10:46 am

  8. 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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 10:50 am

  9. 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.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 10:50 am

  10. 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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 10:53 am

  11. so many people are completely unwilling to give an inch in any way.

    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.

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 10:54 am

  12. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 10:55 am

  13. Finally, Liam, that’s all you had to say.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 10:56 am

  14. Ultimately I agree with you, Mark & Liam, but I still find the meta around the whole issue interesting, along with the instransigence.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 11:00 am

  15. “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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:00 am

  16. “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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:01 am

  17. stop apologising for murderers, Graeme.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 11:03 am

  18. “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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:03 am

  19. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:06 am

  20. 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…

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 11:07 am

  21. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:08 am

  22. 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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:10 am

  23. agree with Jase, Mark ,Liam etc.

    no need to celebrate his life or his death

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 11, 2006 at 11:15 am

  24. 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.

    derrida derider

    December 11, 2006 at 11:23 am

  25. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:23 am

  26. “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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:28 am

  27. “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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:29 am

  28. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:30 am

  29. Yawn, I’ll repeat my argument for you Currency, since you’re so perversely keen to morally relatively compare.

    Comparing [Pinochet] 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.

    Dictator dead! Hooray!

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 11:32 am

  30. “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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:33 am

  31. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:35 am

  32. “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?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:38 am

  33. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:53 am

  34. 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.

    Liam

    December 11, 2006 at 11:56 am

  35. Manning Clark compared Lenin to Jesus Christ. He deserves whatever shite he gets thrown at him.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 11:59 am

  36. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:59 am

  37. Liam trivialises Clark’s love of homicidal psychopaths.

    Case closed.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:11 pm

  38. This is very very disturbing Liam.

    Now whats the REAL reason you are dirty on the General?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:14 pm

  39. 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.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 12:15 pm

  40. CL: Saddam: 500,000 deaths – “strong man” who was – alas – needed for “stability”

    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 law”.

    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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 12:19 pm

  41. 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?

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 12:25 pm

  42. “CL: his removal “unlawful” according to “international law”.”

    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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:26 pm

  43. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:29 pm

  44. GMB, go here for evidence from the horse’s mouth.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 12:29 pm

  45. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:30 pm

  46. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:33 pm

  47. 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?”

    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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:34 pm

  48. CL: The left’s position in the early twenty-first century was that Saddam should have been left in power for the sake of “stability”.

    Sources, please.

    CL: There is, of course, no such thing as “international law”.

    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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 12:35 pm

  49. 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

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 12:38 pm

  50. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:42 pm

  51. “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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 12:49 pm

  52. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 12:58 pm

  53. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 12:58 pm

  54. 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?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 1:00 pm

  55. 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;

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:03 pm

  56. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:05 pm

  57. 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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 1:05 pm

  58. 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!

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 1:12 pm

  59. 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.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 1:12 pm

  60. 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?

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 1:15 pm

  61. 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 !

    jimmythespiv

    December 11, 2006 at 1:16 pm

  62. “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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:17 pm

  63. 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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 1:18 pm

  64. “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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 1:19 pm

  65. 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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:21 pm

  66. 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.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 1:23 pm

  67. “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.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:24 pm

  68. 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?

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 1:25 pm

  69. Wolf was like the Commie’s Reinhardt Heydrich then?

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 1:26 pm

  70. A Gulfstream 5.5 to the ICC, more like.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 1:26 pm

  71. This gives a sanitized but reasonably accurate precis of Markus Wolf. Heydrich is a fair comparison, ABL.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 1:32 pm

  72. Well, I stuffed that link.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 1:32 pm

  73. 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 !

    jimmythespiv

    December 11, 2006 at 1:34 pm

  74. CL:
    >WRONG! Gotcha! It was the method of removal that the left objected to, dummy!

    Touche.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 1:47 pm

  75. (Correction) FF to CL:
    >WRONG! Gotcha! It was the method of removal that the left objected to, dummy!

    Touche.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 1:48 pm

  76. “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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 1:48 pm

  77. 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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:49 pm

  78. Agree JC. I haven’t met too many libertarians who are into ‘immoral equivalency’.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 1:52 pm

  79. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 1:56 pm

  80. …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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 2:00 pm

  81. ‘” 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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:00 pm

  82. what has Saddam got to do with PInochet’s death?

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 11, 2006 at 2:04 pm

  83. Something to do with international law, apparently.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 2:05 pm

  84. International ‘law’, Mark 😉

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 2:06 pm

  85. 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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:07 pm

  86. so it was the law that killed him and not his heart.

    Would that make it a legal attack?

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 11, 2006 at 2:10 pm

  87. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:14 pm

  88. “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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:20 pm

  89. 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).

    jimmythespiv

    December 11, 2006 at 2:29 pm

  90. 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.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 11, 2006 at 2:43 pm

  91. I agree jimmy. There is a difference. But JC summed up my thoughts pretty well.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 2:51 pm

  92. BBCLB:
    >For petes sake CL go away admit you got everything wrong about Iraq.

    Touche again.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 2:55 pm

  93. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:56 pm

  94. 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.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 2:58 pm

  95. Now let’s have Castro for the sake of balance.

    More people have died there since the end of the war than for the same period preceding it.

    At what point did the war end in Iraq? When Bush clicked his ruby-red slippers together and wished it so?

    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.

    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.

    Andrew Elder

    December 11, 2006 at 2:59 pm

  96. “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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 3:04 pm

  97. Useful points to the debate as always, andy.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 3:05 pm

  98. 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”.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 3:06 pm

  99. “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.”

    And you are basing that on what, exactly?

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 3:08 pm

  100. 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.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 3:08 pm

  101. 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?

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 3:22 pm

  102. “Yeah, Kofi’s a known international law breaker.”

    I wouldn’t bet against those odds Fatso.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 3:27 pm

  103. “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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 3:29 pm

  104. I’m glad that quote survived the shredder, fatty.

    C.L.

    December 11, 2006 at 3:35 pm

  105. “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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 3:49 pm

  106. Ok .

    Define international law , fatso, as it applies to the discussion. Go!

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 3:52 pm

  107. I would just like to say Pinochet met a chile ending

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 11, 2006 at 3:55 pm

  108. “Go!”

    Get your own catchphrase, JC.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 3:57 pm

  109. 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!

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 4:00 pm

  110. Can’t think up your own? OK then.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 4:03 pm

  111. 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…;-)

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 4:09 pm

  112. “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.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 4:21 pm

  113. what sort of silly utopian are you, ff? who gives a shit about international law?

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 4:28 pm

  114. 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.

    cosmo

    December 11, 2006 at 4:42 pm

  115. “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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  116. 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?

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 4:44 pm

  117. International law invites war ff. How else do you enforce it?

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 4:45 pm

  118. “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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 4:46 pm

  119. 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.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 5:13 pm

  120. “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.

    fatfingers

    December 11, 2006 at 5:21 pm

  121. Jason asked:
    >who gives a shit about international law?

    Now Jase I think that’s a little harsh. Our very own Karl Popper thought international law, and the development of an effective international police force to be entirely possible goals. He may have been being utopian, and even wrong, but he was not silly.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  122. I think you’ve got a bad analogy there fatfingers.

    Enforcing international law requires war.

    Enforcing criminal law requires arrest & jail.

    Neither laws encourage the original breach. I agree that international law exists, but I don’t see much value in it. I especially find it strange when pro-war people use international law to justify their invasion of Iraq.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 6:09 pm

  123. MH:
    >Okay ff, invade China for not being a free nation.

    Shouldn’t this challenge be more properly directed at those who supported the invasion of Iraq, rather than ff?

    On the other hand, apparently if you oppose an immediate US invasion of China, this is because you actually want the current regime ‘to stay in office killing people in the name of “stability”’!

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 6:12 pm

  124. No, it’s because you’ve done a cost benefit analysis and decided that while China for convenience may appear on maps as a giant red blob, it is a giant red blob to which we annually sell millions of tonnes of wheat/iron ore/coal/medical equipment etc etc…

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 6:32 pm

  125. Careful skeptic, if you’re skeptical of government and do cost-benefit analysis then Graeme thinks you’re evil.

    This can perhaps be best understood by considering the position of Ayn Rand. Any dodgy commie dictatorship can be invaded without guilt… but you shouldn’t do it unless it’s in your interest. That’s why she was opposed to the Vietnam war.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 6:39 pm

  126. SL:
    >No, it’s because you’ve done a cost benefit analysis…

    Yes, exactly, not that you’d even bother. It’s just a daft idea. However, apparently if you apply the same practical argument to the daft invasion of Iraq it’s because you rilly luv dictators and rilly, rilly luv sanction regimes that kill thousands of children.

    That’s the level of argument we’re looking at here.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 6:47 pm

  127. Cosmo Kramer

    If the sainted allende hadn’t blown his head off and he continued to steal, had the the Castro man help figure out how to “put things together”, became an active Soviet client and took on their practices, what do you think would have been the death toll when it was all finished?

    nearest 10,000 is fine with me.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 6:47 pm

  128. JH:
    >This can perhaps be best understood by considering the position of Ayn Rand…Any dodgy commie dictatorship can be invaded without guilt…

    It’s also best remembered that dear old AR was first and foremost a writer of romantic fiction…

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 6:50 pm

  129. I do not think we will get anywhere trying to compare Pinochet with Pol Pot, Saddam or Hitler.

    We should ask Liam and Cosmo how Pinochet compares with Castro. Three areas

    1) Volent overthrough of a legitimate government
    2) Economic policies
    3) Transition to democracy.

    An idea that comparisons are irrelevant is ridiculous. This may be true in legal sense (in domestic criminal cases). Politicians should be judged by standards of their time and place. Without these comparisons it is impossible to comprehend history.

    Boris

    December 11, 2006 at 6:55 pm

  130. Daniel, I don’t know about you, but I didn’t find much of Rand’s work romantic.

    If you judge her by what she published first she was a fiction writer. If you judge her by what she wrote most she was a philosopher. And her fiction was all informed by her philosophy so I think the later definition is closer to the truth.

    I’m with the people who don’t care or know enough about Pinochet to say anything for or against.

    John Humphreys

    December 11, 2006 at 7:16 pm

  131. I’ve only ever read Rand’s fiction, and that was a long time ago. Even so, I wouldn’t have pegged her as a romantic writer. She did something I don’t like – her fiction was strongly didactic. I’m in the camp that says anything not pure story gets thrown over the side. She did it well, however, and her stuff worked as fiction.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 7:19 pm

  132. Rand called herself a Romantic writer (with the capital R) and I think that label suits.

    Jason Soon

    December 11, 2006 at 7:21 pm

  133. Yes, she laid out her aesthetic theory (such as it is) in a book called “The Romantic Manifesto.”

    Daniel Barnes

    December 11, 2006 at 7:32 pm

  134. Well, yes, capital R (a la Shelley or Byron) fits – but only up to a point. Rand – like Orwell – hectors. Because she has a good story, however, she gets away with it.

    skepticlawyer

    December 11, 2006 at 7:33 pm

  135. To get back to sl’s original question (not sure if I remember it now), the left’s intense demonisation of Pinochet originates in the ancient jibe from the right: that no (radical) socialist government had ever been elected by popular vote. Allende was, so for the left, he was their great vindication, almost a kind of messiah figure. And the man who cut him down was the evil angel incarnate.

    That’s not over-stating it. I know hard lefties who yearn to make a trip to Chile to pay homage at Allende’s tomb, as it were, but shiveringly remark they dare not do so until Pinochet is dead. From being what it was — a fairly typical South American coup (the woods were full of them at the time) — the Allende episode passed from history and became a matter of legend, and worse, of superstition.

    Galtieri of Argentina was probably a lot worse than Pinochet, killing many more thousands in a much shorter time, but was never subjected — as far as I’m aware anyway — to the same horror-comic characterisation by the left. But he never took down a socialist hero.

    Rob

    December 11, 2006 at 9:41 pm

  136. Your right Rob.

    As time goes by and people forget, they’re trying to beautify Whitlam, forgeting of course that he almost ruined the country.

    It was the closest i think we came to a situation where the country was very close to some military takeover if he hadn’t given up power.

    It would have happened if Keating was PM, because he said he would have had Fraser and the GG arrested for sedition.

    If that had happened it would have been on.

    That’s similar shit ( but only worse) that was going on in Chile.

    Allende ws ingle handely selling out to the commies and was ruining the country.

    The irony is that he killed himself with the AK47 Castro gave him as a gift.

    Nice gifts Castro gives to his friends.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:16 pm

  137. Liam [on 3]:
    Our glorious news media here have been rather shy about mentioning what the old Kleptocrat had stolen. Wonder how he compared with the Emperor Bokassa?

    Jimmythe spiv [on61]:
    Mark Hill’s dislike of all dictators is understandable
    but you were correct in pointing out the two different types of dictators. I would put Commodore Bainimarama in one group (usurped power but unlikely to murder and rob the citizenry )and General Pinochet in the other (mass murderer, torturer, plunderer, puppet, wrecker of his nation, betrayer of his allies and all-round monster). The Chilean people are better off without him …. as were the Romanians without Ceausescu.

    Graham Bell

    December 11, 2006 at 11:22 pm

  138. “The Chilean people are better off without him …. as were the Romanians without Ceausescu. ”

    Graham, i don’t think many people are arguing that the country isn’t better off under liberal democracy, but the question really is whether the people would have been better off with Allende.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:28 pm

  139. Probably. It was still a democracy.

    (Graeme Bird reckons there is minimal proof that Pinochet ordered murders but insists that Allende had thugs as does Mugabe, but no proof).

    Who says he wouldn’t have pulled a Keating and embraced microeconomic reform, inflation targeting and open financial markets?

    Ironically, Nixon backed the coup and Friedman (at the time one of his advisers) thought he was utterly disastrous, re; price controls.

    Mark Hill

    December 11, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  140. “General Pinochet in the other (mass murderer, torturer, plunderer, puppet, wrecker of his nation, betrayer of his allies and all-round monster).”

    You see I thought that too Graham. But I’m just not seeing the evidence for it.

    In the end I might have to go and try and figure the context out for myself.

    But I feel I’ve been stooged by the hard left all this time.

    I’m seeing him way down low on the list of tyrants. He after all gave up his post volunteerily.

    And after the 70’s… Since thats when I’d remember. I mean his non-judicial killings must have been of the you-could-count-them-on-your-fingers in any given year variety.

    Otherwise we would have their matyred names.

    I remember when Paul Keating used to sit at Suhartos knee and call him “uncle” in their language.

    Now this guy was a commie-killer that would just make you want to puke.

    This is what happens when we don’t give our lads enough weaponry.

    Our leaders end up sucking up to people who are wading deep in blood.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:36 pm

  141. “Who says he wouldn’t have pulled a Keating and embraced microeconomic reform, inflation targeting and open financial markets?”

    He killed himself with Castro’s gift. He was stealing assets like crazy from anyone and everyone. I think it would be be a tall order to expect him to do a 180deg loop.

    JC.

    December 11, 2006 at 11:46 pm

  142. He was rightfully removed.

    Him and his thugs were operating ruthlessly outside the constitution.

    Even his suicide seems hateful to me. Its like he was trying to poison pill the situation.

    Trying to set things up for a civil war.

    He should have stayed alive. Backed the general up and tried to heal the wounds he’d opened.

    But thats expecting a pig to fly because he was a commie-fascist.

    GMB

    December 11, 2006 at 11:56 pm

  143. “General Pinochet in the other (mass murderer, torturer, plunderer, puppet, wrecker of his nation, betrayer of his allies and all-round monster).”

    and where would you put Castro?

    Boris

    December 12, 2006 at 12:37 am

  144. Castro?

    What’s wrong with Castro?

    He set up all these clinics and medical units in Cuba. He’s the good guy.

    Listen carefully for next leftoid who tells you that no matter what you think, Cuba has a free medical system.

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 12:40 am

  145. “He set up all these clinics and medical units in Cuba. He’s the good guy.”

    This ‘leftoid’ defence is equivalent to your defence of Pinoshit – “He liberalised most of the economy. He’s the good guy.”

    fatfingers

    December 12, 2006 at 12:47 am

  146. Its just implausible isn’t it.

    I mean our own medical systems are so flawed and hyper-expensive and getting more expensive every year.

    And so if the Cubans had their medical system JUST SO.

    Then they would never want for anything at all.

    Because they would be the leading country for the outsourcing of medical services and then of course they would wind up a middle-tier economy with a per capita income similiar to Thailand for example.

    But instead the are dirt poor.

    And yet the dumb left believe every word of this magnificent medical care JIVE!!!!

    Or do they believe.

    I go on the working theory that they are just a pack of bastards myself.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:48 am

  147. “He liberalised most of the economy. He’s the good guy.”

    Never said that Fats, you did.

    100-200 million people dead through commie slaughter the past century and you and the rest of the animal pack focus on 3000 dead in Chile.

    Now what were you saying about the castro’s medical clinics?

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 12:51 am

  148. Tell you what fats. Lets score Pinochet against the guys you wanna keep under raps and see where it all ends up.

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 12:54 am

  149. “This ‘leftoid’ defence is equivalent to your defence of Pinoshit – “He liberalised most of the economy. He’s the good guy.”

    No thats not it.

    You see we don’t have the context.

    All we know is that he’s not at the high end of the bad dictators spectrum.

    Others who know more about it might be able to say yay or nay to his moral standing.

    But its pretty clear that he’s not at the wrong end of the spectrum.

    Yet I believed that he was at that wrong end.

    And Graham still seems to think so.

    So where does this come from?

    Well I’m assuming that it comes from the left who will never forgive him for stopping his country from becoming communist.

    Now had he acheived that WITHOUT killing non-militants we would have to count him along with the greatest heroes of the twentieth century.

    We would have to have him sitting next to Reagan and Nelson Mandela.

    But its doubtful that he is that saintly or even indeed saintly.

    But nonetheless. He was an ally. And it doesn’t seem to me that he was a bad ally.

    And it seems to me that the bad men are listening.

    And that they will perceive us dissing an ally at his funeral to be a sign of weakness.

    When the bad guys think we are weak that means a helluva lot of killing to get them to change their minds.

    And that to me lacks a sense of the higher ethics.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:57 am

  150. Castro has been exporting doctors to Venezuela by the dozen over the past 4 years. looks like he had a little surplus over there.

    Which means the obvious. If you can breathe and have a functioning brain stem you too can be a medico in Cuba. Kill someone because you’re too stupid to tell the difference between a wart and skin cancer? Well of course one can sue the system for malpractice.

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 12:59 am

  151. Right.

    But to be fair it could be that they had some sort of training infrastructure thing for the basics down.

    And that they could then train them up in a factory sort of way (say) to third year med level.

    Thats the way these bankrupt commie islands would have to survive one supposes.

    Concentrate on armaments and one other speciality.

    Whereas look at Thailand. There are places there where you can get top flight operations of some kinds for a fraction of the cost.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 1:04 am

  152. The exporting of Cuban doctors to Venezuela has caused problems for medical graduates from local universities, who are now leaving the country (they’re often opponents of Chavez).

    It’s like providing direct aid (‘here, have some free wheat!’) to a third world country. The local farmers go broke; when the aid dries up, the people are worse off than when they started.

    skepticlawyer

    December 12, 2006 at 1:04 am

  153. does anybody else find the parallels between sulla and pinochet interesting.

    At the beginning of 82 BC, Sulla was appointed dictator, rei publicae constituendae causa, by the Senate and subsequently ratified by the “Assembly of the People”, with no limit on time in office. Sulla had total control of the city and empire of Rome. This unusual honour (used hitherto only in times of extreme danger to the city, such as the Second Punic War, and only for 6 month periods) represented an exception to Rome’s policy of not giving total power to a single individual. Sulla can be seen as setting the precedent for Julius Caesar’s dictatorship, and the eventual end of the Republic under Augustus.

    In total control of the city and its affairs, Sulla instituted a reign of terror, the likes of which had never been seen in Rome before. Proscribing or outlawing every one of his political opponents, Sulla ordered some 1,500 Roman nobles (i.e., senators and equites) executed. The blood bath went on for months. Romans were executed for any reason or none at all. Helping or sheltering a person who was proscribed was also punishable by death.

    Without any political obstacle, Sulla enacted a series of reforms to put control of the State firmly in the hands of the Senate. He arranged that the number of senators was doubled from 300 to 600 and that membership was automatic on election to the office of quaestor instead of at the decision of the censors. He also reduced the tribune’s political power, and limited the Assembly’s ability to pass laws or veto them without the Senate’s approval. His goal was to return the Republic to a time before the Gracchi. In this, he was too late: Rome’s politics had moved on, in an ominous direction. Finally, in a demonstration of his absolute power, he expanded the “Pomerium”, the sacred boundary of Rome, untouched since the time of the kings.

    After two years of unchallenged power, Sulla stunned Rome by resigning the Dictatorship. He disbanded his legions, re-established consular government (in accordance to his own rules, he stood for and was elected consul in 80 BC). He dismissed his lictors and walked unguarded in the forum, offering to give account of his actions to any citizen. This lesson in supreme confidence, Caesar later ridiculed – “Sulla did not know his political ABCs”. In retrospect, of the two, Sulla was to have the last laugh, as it was he who died in his own bed.

    drscroogemcduck

    December 12, 2006 at 1:14 am

  154. Ain’t that amazing, SL.

    i’m sure the Venez doc are well trained. Put your faith in Cuban docs are just as well trained??????

    yea right and Castros fly.

    how fucked up is that. The prick is swapping his real doc for paramedics… I’m sure. But Chvez is too dumb to figure out he’s been taken for a patsy by Brother Castro.

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 1:20 am

  155. You’ve irritated Kimberella over at LP, Graeme. So much so that she’s linked to your comment rather than the main blogpost.

    skepticlawyer

    December 12, 2006 at 1:34 am

  156. GB
    The caribbean triger – Cuba- has been growing leaps and bounds since Castro was er, appointed to lead the country to the socialist paradise.

    It has a miraculous per cap GDP of $3500.

    Of course with that sort of wealth the Mayo clinic and harvard medical school would have nothing on them.

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 1:37 am

  157. “This ‘leftoid’ defence is equivalent to your defence of Pinoshit – “He liberalised most of the economy. He’s the good guy.”

    Hold on, that is confusing. Are you prepared to condemn Castro the same way you condemn Pinochet? Or stronger, since Pinochet at least handed over power and paved way to restoration of democracy. Castro is preparing to hand over to his brother.

    Boris

    December 12, 2006 at 2:08 am

  158. Yeah but skeptic.

    She’s going to be irritated.

    And sheilas have these emotions but they don’t really understand them. Sheilas as a rule lack introspection.

    So she’ll be irritated for awhile and then she’ll just as likely conclude that she’s crazy about me.

    I’ve posted my comments straight over there.

    I posted it straight but its on moderation.

    And just like here I’ll be waiting to be turned around on this.

    We’ve all seen what can happen in Iraq if you are unable to win a war quickly.

    So I would like to know what the real history was.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 2:17 am

  159. Just over at CLUB-SISSY and I see this:

    “Pinochet’s long overdue collision with justice occurred on 16 October 1998, when he was arrested in London, where he had gone for medical treatment.*

    A Spanish judge sought his extradition on charges of kidnapping a political leader from Argentina in 1976.

    The case ultimately went to the House of Lords, who upheld the extradition order.

    Pinochet was finally allowed home by the Home Secretary on medical grounds, but by then he had been detained for fifteen months.”

    What an absolute fucking disgrace.

    HE WAS OUR ALLY.

    HE HELPED US OUT DURING THE FALKLANDS WAR.

    He stuck his neck out to favour the Brits over a threatening neighbour.

    This was the one place on earth other then Chile where he ought to have been safe.

    I cannot tell you uneducated young idiots just what bad karma comes when you allow left-wingers out of pure personal spite and malignance to break ancient codes of understanding and asylum like this.

    This one act or national betrayal and cowardice would be enough to to open up a veritable pandoras box of bad karma.

    IF WE WANT TO DIE WITH MUD IN OUR MOUTHS AND BLOOD IN OUR EYES LET US CULTIVATE A REPUTATION FOR BEING UNFAITHFUL TO OUR ALLIES.

    This is just a fucking disgrace.

    And no wonder Britain is in a power of trouble right now.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 2:55 am

  160. GMB:

    No. The act of cowardice was in letting that bastard return to Chile and not sending him to Spain to face trail.

    “…out of pure personal spite and malignance…”

    Please. He was a murderer and a coward. If he was so fucking innocent, then why was he scared of going to trial? Why did he FAKE infirmity in order to escape accounting for his actions?
    Tell me genius, how many political opponents did Allende torture? With the economic sabotage and strikes fostered by the right, with the economic warfare by the US, with armed groups like Fatherland and Liberty marching openly in the streets calling for the violent overthrow of the government, with the privately owned media’s daily dose of the same, how many did he exile? How many did he drop, handcuffed and blindfolded, into the ocean from helicopters? How many concentration camps did he set up? During 3 years of facist provocation, Allende respected free speech, freedom of assembly, the INDEPENDENCE of the Army and the Constitution. You were asking for evidence on what happened during Pinochet’s regime? Google the same topics under “Pinochet” and you’ll get your answer.
    And yet in some strange process in what passes for a brain between your ears, Allende becomes the facist and Pinochet the defender of freedom.

    cosmo

    December 12, 2006 at 5:35 am

  161. JC says:

    “Ain’t that amazing, SL.

    i’m sure the Venez doc are well trained. Put your faith in Cuban docs are just as well trained??????

    yea right and Castros fly.

    how fucked up is that. The prick is swapping his real doc for paramedics… I’m sure. But Chvez is too dumb to figure out he’s been taken for a patsy by Brother Castro. ”

    And you know this how, Einstein? Were you treated by a Cuban doctor? Do you know someone who was? Or are you once again spouting nonsense because you’re so good at it? I guess that’s your “comparative advantage”.

    cosmo

    December 12, 2006 at 5:45 am

  162. GMB: “I go on the working theory that they are just a pack of bastards myself.”

    Hear, hear!

    And they are also mental defectives. How can you seriously go on arguing that statism and permissiveness can work when you see the social ills they have caused. The underclass, the drop in the birthrate, the inane concentration on “racism”. The last is ironic because the left’s belief that calling someone a wog is the first step on the way to a new Holocaust contrasts strongly with the anti-Semitism that blends so closely with their hatred of Israel.

    As for Pinochet, he was in the same position as Malcolm Fraser in 1975: let a maniac Government ruin the country, or take action to save the polity from ruin? Allende was much less legitimate than Whitlam because the Chilean President only got 36% of the vote.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 12, 2006 at 9:49 am

  163. Cosmo

    Don’t you mean, at the end of it all, that you get a buzz out of the teenage “solidarity” with good old Allende, sitting around singing Billy Bragg songs – the standard teenage socialist guff ? Hard to get a similar hard on about monetarism !

    jimmythespiv

    December 12, 2006 at 12:17 pm

  164. “Please. He was a murderer and a coward. If he was so fucking innocent, then why was he scared of going to trial? Why did he FAKE infirmity in order to escape accounting for his actions?”

    I didn’t say he was innocent you retard. In fact I was reading that James Farrel says they tortured as many as 28, 000 people. Despite the fact that James Farrel is full of shit normally I have to take that on board.

    SO IS THIS THE NEW POLICY THEN.

    Well thats ok by me as long as its practised across the board.

    Gorbachev must be arrested along with all his surviving cabinet. The massacres and the genocidal policies in Afghanistan were unforgiveable.

    Of course if they knew that this was to be their fate the Soviets would never have allowed a collapse and they would have nuked us instead but never mind WE TRICKED THEM.

    Ho Ho no nukes at your fingertips now hey Gorby?

    And what if we were able to get the Dear Leader and his team to step down so that Korea could be reunited without a shot fired….

    Well the new policy is to after a little while come barging into the remote mansions we bribed them with and yell out HA HA WE TRICKED YOU and to hold them accountable for the torture, the gulags and the mass starvation.

    Of course Suharto and his family aren’t so much on any watch list. Actually its invites all round. But as soon as we can get as many of them out of Indonesia as we can the new policy is to say HA HA WE TRICKED YOU and have them all arrested. Because he of course killed 50 or 100 times as many as Pinochet….

    Of course once the old man dies in Cuba we might be able to get the whole lot of them to step down with threats and bribes of big mansions in other places in South America.

    And they’ll never guess but WE ARE GOING TO TRICK THEM TOO!!!!

    Look. Lets face it. Left-wingers are idiots.

    GMB

    December 12, 2006 at 12:28 pm

  165. GMB (and JC too):
    Never worried about chasing up any proof of Pinochet’s brutality and incompetence because i was always bumping into people with first-hand experience of Pinochet’s regime (sometime what they said was at variance with what was in the news media here).

    You weren’t stooged by the Hard Left but all the dreamy Lefties had a – what would you call it? – a Camelot view? – of the elected government Pinochet overthrew; so far removed from reality that, had Salvador Ajjende survived, he would not have recognized himelf in the Lefty fantasies about him!

    You are probably right about the US being very concerned about Chile falling to the Reds but it is more likely that, if the Allende government had avoided being thrown out of office by legitimate means, they might have been forced to run a government on a West European Leftist model rather than as another Soviet sattelite.

    Just for laughs, see if you can find a copy of the old Soviet newsreel of Josef Stalin’s corpse laying in state (complete with funereal music and doleful commentary – and you won’t even need to know a single word of Russian to get the message) and then run some of the news shots of Pinochet’s laying in state and all his tearful clients – oops, sorry, “supporters” – filing past. (Don’t fill your glass more than half-full while watching it though in case you spill some).

    Haven’t yet roamed the Web to see what celebrations are happening in Argentina (bet anything you like that a lot of Malvinas veterans are still too p*ssed to drive a car today :-))

    Boris:
    Castro is an interesting case. Crushed his opponents but didn’t go murderously insane with power – perhaps a bit like Tito? Castro’s regime definitely has some very progressive aspects (although SkepticLawyer did mention some unintended adverse side-effects of the Castro regime’s actions.)

    Drscroogemcduck:
    Thanks for you comparison with Sulla …. but Pinochet lacked Sulla’s determination and skills.

    Everyone:
    Don’t forget to watch Chilean news ESTA SEMANA on SBS-TV, Sunday morning 8:30am (Queensland time – make your own arrangements elsewhere).

    Graham Bell

    December 12, 2006 at 11:38 pm

  166. Wonder if anyone has broken the news of Pinochet’s death to Saddam Hussein?

    Graham Bell

    December 12, 2006 at 11:43 pm

  167. Castro is into the torture JIVE, Graham – as much as Pinochet, and he’s been at it for longer. My interest is in the deification of one, and the damnatio of the other (to keep the Roman imagery going).

    Disclosure: my Doctor is Venezuelan.

    His whole family has been forced out of Venezeula by Chavez’ Cuban import policies. They aren’t rich, but they’re educated. Chavez has rewarded the old rich and the poor, and killed the bourgeoisie.

    Sound familiar?

    skepticlawyer

    December 12, 2006 at 11:50 pm

  168. Graham says

    “Never worried about chasing up any proof of Pinochet’s brutality and incompetence because i was always bumping into people with first-hand experience of Pinochet’s regime (sometime what they said was at variance with what was in the news media here).”

    I did check it Graham. i went to a few old books I have. President Alwyn came after Pinochet ( who was no friend of pinochet). He ran an inquiry and found the number dead was about 2,000.

    I don’t get the sense that the regime was as brutal as the left down there make out.

    JC.

    December 12, 2006 at 11:57 pm

  169. Are the lefties (and Malcolm Fraser) happy with the performance of their man in Zimbabwe? Do they care?

    Actually there are so many rotten regimes that the left have supported at various times that it would be a fulltime job to document them. They are lucky that they can focus their full attention on one or two anti-left dictators like Franco and Pinochet.

    Rafe Champion

    December 13, 2006 at 12:03 am

  170. “Never worried about chasing up any proof of Pinochet’s brutality and incompetence because i was always bumping into people with first-hand experience of Pinochet’s regime (sometime what they said was at variance with what was in the news media here).”

    Right.

    Well thats good enough for me.

    But its still reckless to put him too much towards the tyrant end of the dictator-tyrant spectrum.

    At one end you might have the authoritarian but ultimately benign Lee Kwan Yew and good Queen Elizabeth the first.

    And at the other end you have Saddam and Stalin.

    The thing is what your average dictator gets up to is so overpoweringly sickening to all of us and just so hateful that shining a light on it….. when we would really rather just look away… shining a light on any one of them can lead us to think that THAT ONE is evil incarnate.

    I’ve been testing and pushing and prodding left-wingers to try and prove to me that he wasn’t a maligned freedom fighter that forestalled a civil war by winning quickly Corleone-style.

    Now that may or may not be true. But I’ve finally gotten a couple of items that lead me to believe (for the moment) that he really was a dirty bastard.

    Farrel reckoned that his outfit tortured maybe 28,000 people. Now Farrel is often full of shit but in this case I see no reason to doubt him for the moment.

    And then his participation in operation condor.

    Now if a bloke…realises he’s gone too far…. and he buggers off across the border and keeps a low profile….

    Well he ought to be left alone. Because unless he’s talking to Cubans and getting into arms smuggling he ought to be provisionally forgiven once he’s past that border.

    But Condor was an agreement to murder people and hide the bodies even after the kid had done the right thing and buggered off!!!!

    Nonetheless overestimating his nastiness is A WHITEWASH FOR THE SOCIALIST TYRANTS.

    And the real reason that the left (as a group and not necessarily as individuals) do it is because he did in fact make the fight against communism in his country a damned short fight.

    As nasty and filthy as he was that ought to be a mitigating factor and not something to hate him more for.

    GMB

    December 13, 2006 at 12:36 am

  171. “Castro is an interesting case. Crushed his opponents but didn’t go murderously insane with power – perhaps a bit like Tito? Castro’s regime definitely has some very progressive aspects”

    No bud you see THATS where I’ve got to disagree with you.

    No matter how much of a criminal Pinochet was or was not CASTRO is at least two orders of magnitude worse.

    He is just such a fiend.

    If only Bobby had managed to kill him.

    GMB

    December 13, 2006 at 12:41 am

  172. “Castro is an interesting case. Crushed his opponents but didn’t go murderously insane with power – perhaps a bit like Tito? Castro’s regime definitely has some very progressive aspects”

    With all respect, Graham, I think here lies the core double standard of your (and of the majority of the left of centre) thinking.

    I do not know how many people Castro killed or tortured. But we do know that:

    1) Castro did not allow any opposition, however loyal it may be. All opposition is either in exile or in jail.

    There was opposition under Pinochet

    2) Castro had no intention of introducing democracy or human rights.

    Pinochet did hold elections and handed over power to the elected government.

    3) Castro introduced extreme socialist economy that created huge shortages, black market, and all the beauties of the planned economy.

    Pinochet introduced painful market reforms that ensured relative prosperity of the country long after he left power.

    While people may disagree on socio-economic side, I wonder how you (along with Liam and Cosmo) are going to dispute 1) and 2)?

    This is particularly interesting becuase some people may recall that I actually cited Cuba on the number of occasions as an example of a reasonable socialist regime. Sounds like a contradiction, right? But there is no contradictions. Because by European standards Castro would have been a monster. But by miserable central American standards (Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, even Jamaica)) Cuba is doing OK. Similar approach should be taken when talking about Pinochet. Don’t compare it with Switzerland.

    Boris

    December 13, 2006 at 1:50 am

  173. It’s kind of painful to think that an entire continent – one or two countries excepted (Chile is now one of the exceptions, but it took a while) is wallowing in a cesspit of corruption, dictatorship and central planning.

    Lovely place, SouthAm.

    skepticlawyer

    December 13, 2006 at 2:03 am

  174. How thoroughly predictable you are, munnkey. I sometimes think it might be more fun if I simply wrote your responses for you – at least then my opponent would have a clue. Of course, the inevitable problem is dumbing myself down enough to be convincing. It’s a tough ask.

    Fyodor and I were having a beautiful tiff over at the troppo when the thread was closed down obviously because Fyodor was being disgustingly rude to me. My reply to his very last comment

    I know he’ll read it this so I’m leaving it here.

    Yairs, munnkey. Rather unsporting of Ken to shut us down, though clearly he’s not one for bloodsports. Seeing as you cravenly gave up on the monetarism thread, I’ve had no reason to return to this degenerating blog, but your moronic invitation is too good to resist. And don’t pay attention to Birdy. The softcock is obviously shitscared of me and won’t engage any more. Don’t be hard on him – you’ll get there too.

    See the thread from troppo

    http://www.clubtroppo.com.au/2006/12/11/adios-al-torturador/#comments

    “Yes, that’s it, munnkey. Dig in nice and tight. Dig in so deep you’ll never get out again.”

    Is that what you say to your boy friend? I’m sorry but I really had to giggle when I read that Fyds.

    Yes, I’ve always seen you as a giggler. Birdy’s more of a screamer, right?

    “I’ve already proved you defended a murderous tyrant, and that you lied about it.”

    If citing Quiggin is proof of refutation? Otherwise I’m giggling at your pathetic attempt to turn this into another one of your girly jihads.

    No, citing your comments defending the monster was proof. Girly jihads? You’d know. I’m still waiting for you to start ranting again about the evils of bananas. That was fun.

    “You’re done, and you know it. All you have left is bluster, you pitiful idiot.”

    “Pitiful idiot”? How did that pass moderation? Ah moderator??? Just kidding.

    Fyds, that’s another term of abuse you stole from me. I tried that out on you on the gold thread, Fred. Another display of you thieving dishonest ways . When does it end, Mary? When do you stop stealing other poeple’s terms and ideas?

    You’re claiming “pitiful idiot” are you? Dream on, Big Mary. [That is one of yours – you can tell by the total absence of wit.]

    “But, you know, keep pretending you have a case and I might just rub your nose in it.”

    No. No please don’t. I already had enough from he first comment and quite honestly it made me feel a litle ill at the thought. I know I’m a handsome dude though. But I like gals, Fyds. i already told you that.

    You keep saying that [the girlyman doth protest too much] but, as in most things, you’re simply not credible. As for rubbing your nose in it, you’re begging for it now, so don’t think you’re fooling anyone.

    “You know it’ll be fun for both of us.”

    Speak for yourself. I already told you what i think of “rubbing my nose in it” and “digging in nice and tight”.

    And yet here you are, simply BEGGING for my attention. There’s a word for that, pervert.

    I got to get to work Fyds. It’s 8.30 in “normal time” annd there a “good trade deficit” to trade off….. and I got make some money to pay for your education.

    Yes, it’s tough work cruising blogs in the wee hours as a grumpy retiree.

    Now you go off and refute those 6 points otherwise i’ll think you’re slacker.

    Keerist. You really think those were “points”? Let’s see:

    “1.There was the Economist piece going back to 1973.”

    Which was obviously irrelevant in discussing Pinochet’s subsequently murderous tyranny.

    “2.There was the history of the Supreme Court actions and findings at the time.”

    Which was obviously irrelevant in discussing Pinochet’s subsequently murderous tyranny.

    “3 There was the history the lower house findinds and demands placed on the armed forces.”

    Which was obviously irrelevant in discussing Pinochet’s subsequently murderous tyranny.

    “4. there was a brief explanation of why this should be defined as a civil war”

    Which was incorrect. Pinochet ran a military dictatorship which repressed dissent. It wasn’t a civil war that lasted 17 years that tortured and killed all those people, numbnut. Nice try, though: it’s good to see you’re not denying his crimes, just defending them with bullshit arguments. You couldn’t make your hypocrisy any plainer.

    “5. There was the analogous examples of three other civile wars with this one having far less casualties.”

    You really believe this relativist line that because other murderers killed more people, what Pinochet did was OK, dontcha? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: you are a pitiful idiot.

    “6. A citation to the Alywn inquiry citing the number dead was actually 2,000 instead of 3,000.”

    The figure of 3,000 was YOURS, dopey. But I’m a little surprised you’re able to dismiss 2,000 deaths more casually than 3,000. That’s pretty fucked up, even for you.

    I’ll talk to you tomorrow old buddy.
    Nice to meet up again, though. Seriously.

    The pleasure’s all mine. Just don’t go bailing like you did the last time you had your arse kicked, pansy.

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 10:30 am

  175. Ahem. Moderatrix?

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 11:24 am

  176. Fyodor, JC & Bird:

    Pot, Kettle, Black.

    Just sayin.

    skepticlawyer

    December 13, 2006 at 11:28 am

  177. Oh for fucksakes. Who left the gate open for this bipolar thread-wrecker.

    Take it elsewhere Fyodor you lunatic.

    Hide behind that Girly-Man Parish.

    GMB

    December 13, 2006 at 11:55 am

  178. Oh for fucksakes.

    Who left the gate open for this bi—polar thread-wrecker.

    Take it elsewhere Fyodor you lunatic.

    Hide behind that Girly-Man Parish.

    GMB

    December 13, 2006 at 11:56 am

  179. I guess you have nothing to refute, Fyds, if that was your pathetic attempt at refutation.

    In any event it’s good to have you back in form. Seriously. I was worried about you. I didn’t know what had happened.

    I even thought your boyfriend could have violently attacked you or something like that.

    Nice to see you back. Please don’t bring back Nabakov. The insufferable little twerp is telling everyone how rich he is these days. nice friends you pick Fyds. to be honest I always thought you were a better shade of grey than he was, though a bigger liar

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 12:00 pm

  180. I pretty much agree with Graham at #165. “A Camelot view” – nice phrase, Graham; very apt.

    Rob

    December 13, 2006 at 12:04 pm

  181. Have you seen these dumb-leftists over at Troppo.

    They get good idea. Nominations for best comments or something.

    Then almost without exception they start nominating anke-biting comments devoid of wit.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Parish is so gutless he starts a Pinochet is dead thread. And then as soon as he gets any contention he closes it down.

    On the one hand people are whitewashing to big-time criminals with this focus on Pinochet.

    On the other hand they are acting like the girly-men they are over at Troppo.

    They talk as if they have never heard of a dictator before. As if they never knew what it was dictators got up to.

    See our partner for peace over in Jordan. The former King Hussein of Jordan. He concluded a peace deal with Israel and that border went from being the nastiest Israel had to being the most peaceful.

    He kept his word and never turned a blind eye or winked at terrorism or pretended he couldn’t control it or watered down his end of the bargain.

    He genuinely wanted peace and he found it. He supplied it. He brought it about.

    HE MURDERED 40 000 PEOPLE IN A SINGLE INCIDENT.

    Had he not died of cancer should we have arrested him too. Arrested him after he had been given safe passage to one of our allied countries.

    This is why we have democracy people.

    Because it doesn’t always require vast amounts of bloodshed to decide whose in charge.

    It used to be the hereditary monarchy supplied that service.

    Now we’ve all got to grow up a little and be able to put the General in perspective.

    FDR murdered scores of thousands of people for no military reason not once but twice.

    The general was a dictator. And the things that dictators do are just horrible. They shoot horses don’t they. Finding this out ought not be a new revelation to people.

    Such a new revelation that they immediately put Pinochet at some sort of black-belt-level of demonology.

    GMB

    December 13, 2006 at 12:22 pm

  182. Yeah, just as I expected.

    It’s just like you, munnkey, to get a guy all excited then disappoint him. As for you, Birdy, you can claim that I’m hiding from you when you stop begging Jason to kick me off, you gutless loser.

    You two clowns are totally out of puff. You’re a fucking embarassment to stoushing.

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 12:27 pm

  183. We briefly interrupt our scheduled stoushing to bring you some actual reporting on the economic situation in Chile:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33881-2004Jan21

    Daniel Barnes

    December 13, 2006 at 12:29 pm

  184. Now it is good to get some real evidence on the ground. That article is missing something, because a lot of what they say is bullshit. The problem is these journalist and the Chilean “economists” have no frigging idea of what they are talking about.

    Shorter article:

    *Taxing “feral capitalism” and industry policy is responsible for stable and high growth.*

    So why has it failed everywhere else?

    It is bizarre the way they characterise monetarism and a floating peso as Friedman would have suggested: a form of protectionism to stop evil importers. Not cheap imports! Those whacky Chileans, using the tools of the lesser Satan.

    “”What makes Chile different from the rest of Latin America,” said Manuel Riesco, an economist with the Center for National Studies of Alternative Development in Santiago, “is not that we embraced the free market more than our neighbors. What we realized is that the free market is like a car. There is no doubt that it is the best way to get you from point A to point B. But you have to steer. If you take your hands off the wheel, you will end up face-down in a ditch.””

    What the hell does this mean? Sounds like unreconstructed Keynesianism. Note well: “National Studies of Alternative Development in Santiago”

    Sorry chump, you’re trying to reinvent a square wheel.

    “Said Dani Rodrik, professor of international economics at Harvard University: “The myth is that Chile’s success is purely the result of fundamentalist free-market policies. But the truth is quite a bit messier than that. Government activism and management in Chile did not stifle the power of the free market. It unleashed the power of the free market.””

    Riiight…entrepreneurship doesn’t work unless there is industry policy…like MITI telling Sony NOT TO produce transistors.

    The recession: they honestly had to have it. It would have been worse without the reforms. What would have happened if the malinvestments were not cleared out? They would continue to pump more money into unsustainable money pits. Then the whole place would have imploded.

    FDI: Blaming FDI for a straw-man of a problem: foreigners paying for domestic capital accumulation. Those evil bastards paying for our wage increases! Imperialists!

    “Between 1990 and 1992, Chile doubled government spending on health and education, and introduced tax incentives to businesses that provide job training, helping to increase the percentage of Chileans with higher education from 9 percent in 1992 to 16.4 percent last year. The number of professionals in the country expanded 124 percent over that period.”

    So what? Did they need those professionals? I can also ban private health insurance, take on a lot of losses, subsidise them and then claim a massive increase in health spending. The point being? Similarly I can make unnecessary professional regulations and allocate national income to retrain people to become trained in these regulations. Again, the point being?

    “Preoccupied with fostering competition, Chile requires that telecommunications and natural gas firms connect their lines with other providers and Chilean regulatory agencies set the price for those interconnections.”

    Ahem…

    “That has resulted in the lowest-priced long-distance prices in the region; a phone call from Chile to New York City is actually less expensive than one in the other direction.”

    Sure, it has also resulted in a lot of misallocation unless the regulators got the price right EVERY SINGLE TIME.

    “”What we learned from the ’70s and ’80s,” said French-Davis, “is that you don’t want too much foreign investment coming into the country. You want money coming into the country to go towards the development of technology, roads, job training, those things that will improve productivity. That’s where government comes in. We limited the influx of hot money and encouraged domestic savings that we can use as a building block just as easily as foreign savings.””

    That dreaded foreign direct investment! We should get rid of domestic investment as well. For our well-being. FDI is not “Hot money”! It is a long term and illiquid investment with a very long horizon. Prema-Chandra Athukorala from ANU has written extensively about this and has shown that FDI did not cause the Asian crisis etc. I’m calling bullshit on the journalist and these Chilean “economists”.

    Mark Hill

    December 13, 2006 at 12:57 pm

  185. Good account ABL

    The piece lost me after this little snippet:

    While many Latin American countries have whittled government’s role in business affairs, Chile has gone largely in the other direction. Not only has it wielded influence in getting to market its key exports, from table grapes to goat cheese to sofas, but it also has used more legislation, regulation and taxes to tame a feral free-market system that failed to deliver in the 1970s and ’80s.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 1:01 pm

  186. ABL:
    >I’m calling bullshit on the journalist and these Chilean “economists”.

    Well, fair enough. But do you mean the journalist/economists have not correctly stated the countries actual policies, or their actual results, or both? Do you predict that Chile’s economy will decline radically as a result of the current policy mix? Surely this is the upshot of their economists not having Clue 1 as to what they are talking about.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 13, 2006 at 1:19 pm

  187. 1. They are pretending that pumping money into money pits and the eventuating collapse is preferable to a painful reform process.

    2. They are pretending that the Government should direct allocative decisions. They want “capitalism” but industry policy. They are forgetting the cost this has to other industries that uses locally produced inputs which have high effective rates of assistance.

    3. They are mischaracterising the role of FDI and using fallacious protectionist arguments to justify tight money and floating FX rates (ironically what Friedman suggested in the 1950s and 1970s).

    4. They are suggesting that high growth rates not engendered by reckless expansionary policy are damaging. This is just untrue.

    5. Chile will have moderate, mediocre growth like the rest of the social democratic west.

    Mark Hill

    December 13, 2006 at 1:27 pm

  188. Sounds like the WaPo have got their facts wrong, too. Not just the Chileans. Be very careful of anything a journalist says…

    skepticlawyer

    December 13, 2006 at 1:29 pm

  189. ABL:
    >5. Chile will have moderate, mediocre growth like the rest of the social democratic west

    Ok then, room for improvement but it could be worse.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 13, 2006 at 1:39 pm

  190. “Ok then, room for improvement but it could be worse.”

    Be careful Daniel, and take growth seriously. The room for improvement is an increase in living standards. Why oppose this?

    Mark Hill

    December 13, 2006 at 1:45 pm

  191. Fyds

    Unless you can refute the points made about Pinochet, no amount of bluster, lies and distortions will get you through. You need to categorically refute what i have maintained. Using Quiggin as a reference will only get you deeper in the dog house.

    It’s all there, munnkey. Your case has been categorically refuted – challenge me on any point, if you dare.

    Very droll of you to pretend otherwise, however. Although I suppose you’re merely reverting to your clownish habit of pretending to have an argument while standing in shreds. You’re consistently clueless that way.

    I didn’t use Quiggin as a factual reference, BTW. I noted his opinion was the correct one. I wouldn’t expect you to know the difference, given your perpetual incompetence in using sources, but it’s only fair that I point out your failing in this as in so very many matters.

    Maybe you should bring up bananas again? It’s usually at this point in the proceedings – i.e. when every substantive point you raise has been demolished – that you try the old switcheroo to a totally irrelevant topic. Go on, that would be fun, and I could take the piss out of you on that score, too.

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm

  192. ABL:
    >Be careful Daniel, and take growth seriously. The room for improvement is an increase in living standards. Why oppose this?

    I don’t oppose it at all, but I don’t believe in miracles either. The important thing in designing policy – which as you know, includes removing policies as much as adding them – is avoiding overambitious disasters by detached theoretical thinkers. As such, why treat people who were on the ground at the time, making decisions, as such ignoramuses? For example this quote:

    “I don’t think there is any question that Chile did not have the right policy mix in those days,” said Hernan Somerville, president of the Chilean Banking Association and one of Pinochet’s advisers at the time. “The government wasn’t as diligent as it needed to effectively manage the markets and the economy. We needed a system with more balance.”

    This is in 1982, before the “reform of the reforms” ensued. While you seem to regard these people as economic illiterates, their apparently terrible post 1982 direction doesn’t seem to have ended up in the “eventuating collapse” you refer to. With the “reforms reformed” variously over the succeeding years, did the sky fall? 24 or so years later, did those lazy Chileans with their apparent distaste for sufficiently purifying pain, pay the price of “eventuating collapse”? (How “eventuating” is this thing anyway?)

    In short, it doesn’t seem so. Instead, they get “moderate growth.” If you consider that mediocre, fine, but it’s hardly a disaster.

    I’m sorry, I’ve got nothing against criticising Chile’s current policy, but you seem to be over-egging it a little.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 13, 2006 at 2:29 pm

  193. They blamed the initial reforms for the ensuing unemployment in the 1970s. This is true but it is also trivial and the alternative is worse. That was the “eventuating collapse”, not the quagmire every Western country has now.

    Why treat them as ignoramuses? Because they provide blanket statements with no meaning. “The Government needed to control the economy and banks more effectively”. The focus of the article is protectionist, vulgar Keynesianism and relies of State entrepreneurship.

    The truly dreadful part of the article is where monetary and external accounts policy dictated by Friedman was characterised as a protectionist tool, but heap scorn on the Chicago Boys throughout the article. Truly sloppy work.

    Moderate growth is a disaster, if you plan to live a long and happy life.

    Mark Hill

    December 13, 2006 at 2:55 pm

  194. Refutation has meaning, Fyds. it actually means something. Self linking to another one of your useless posts where nothing was ever said to refute the six points I raised is a pathetic cop out.

    There was a choice to be made in Chile at the time.

    There was the Allende route, which if brother Castro is anything to go by would have turned into a slag heap of death and poverty. Or there was the the Pinochet route with little casualites from a civil war.

    They chose wisely for a South Am nation, it seems.

    There was never a choice of democracy at the time seeing Allende was doing everything he could to undermine the constitutional proces and the rule of law.

    There was a choice of the lessor evil.

    You, Fyodor obviously chose the marxist route, which is not a surprise seeing you’re a libertarian imposter as well as liar and distorter of the truth.

    When you go to Marxist hell in the next sad life of yours, you may want to ask Allende why he’s there.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 3:05 pm

  195. Refutation has meaning, Fyds. it actually means something. Self linking to another one of your useless posts where nothing was ever said to refute the six points I raised is a pathetic cop out.

    Another insightful post as ever, JC.

    Andrew Elder

    December 13, 2006 at 3:39 pm

  196. Here it is. Finally.

    The Wall Journal has done an OB on the guy

    see link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009376

    This is the money quote and gives further impetus to my opinion that Chile had a condensed version of a civil war.

    Nearly all the people who died, died in the first three weks of the civil war. Hardly proving the assertion that it was a repressive regime throughout its time. There just isn’t the evidence.

    He was a fucking crook though, as they found millions stashed away. That pisses me off as I never knew that to be the case.

    Incidently Forbes did a piece on wealthy national leaders and Castro’s net worth is several billion dolls.

    “The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197. An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias. The balance died in the next 17 years. The Pinochet dictatorship was fraught with illegality. Civil liberties were lost and opponents tortured. But over time, with the return of private property, the rule of law and a freer economy, democratic institutions also returned. An economic crisis in 1982 led to even more economic liberalization. “

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 3:42 pm

  197. Elder

    You’re pathetic.

    I use that putdown everytime you comment because it is correct. You are usually talking nonsense.

    Try and be original even if nonsenical, you doofus.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 3:45 pm

  198. Don’t get your panties bunched, girlyman. You asked me to humiliate you over here, so don’t start crying now. You want me to rub your nose in your own filth again? OK: it’s your dime, dickhead.

    Six points, you say? As I stated earlier:

    1. An article from 1973 has nothing meaningful to say about the abduction, tortures and murders under Pinochet, in the FOLLOWING 17 YEARS.

    2. The “supreme court actions and findings” at the time of the coup likewise have nothing meaningful to say about the abduction, tortures and murders under Pinochet in the FOLLOWING 17 YEARS.

    3. The “lower house findings and demands placed on the armed forces” at the time of the coup likewise have nothing meaningful to say about the abduction, tortures and murders under Pinochet in the FOLLOWING 17 YEARS.

    4. Your take on the supposed “civil war” is bullshit. The military had total control of the country with their coup and faced minimal armed resistance. The crimes of Pinochet were predominantly against unarmed civilian political enemies.

    5. Aside from presenting an irrelevant argument, the fact that you can find worse “civil wars” does not IN ANY WAY justify Pinochet’s brutal tyranny.

    6. 3,000 was your number, and 2,000 murders (and a large multiple of that in human rights violations) is still unacceptable.

    Your six points are worthless, just like all your attempts at an adult argument.

    Pinochet was a criminal and a tyrant. NOTHING in the constitutional crisis of 1973 justified his crimes, and your attempted defence of the brute is downright disgusting.

    The alternative to Pinochet wasn’t Marxism. There were any number of alternatives that did not involve tyranny, murder and other human rights violations. Save that idiotic bullshit for gormless morons like Birdy.

    BTW, I’ve never claimed to be a libertarian. The statist garbage you’ve just produced proves YOU are the impostor, hypocrite.

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 3:52 pm

  199. FYDS
    So no refutation! Just the usual bluster and bile. Dude, you have to learn to either keep your mouth shut or do the hard yards and prove your point.

    There’s no point in writing all that stuff if you can’t prove your point.

    Now that i have the Wall street journal backing up my thesis your in a real mess.

    Look, i’ll let you off with an apology, but only this time. I also caution you that next time you get into a scrape, get your facts ready otherwise it makes you look silly. And I don’t want that for you Fyds. I don’t want you looking silly.

    By the way, welcome back to the reservation. I missed you, although Birdy thinks you’re just a steed hump on the information highway. i think you’re more than that.

    But please I hope you haven’t brought Nabs back with you.

    He visits at times… Disguised as battery pack I kid you not. He’s got a moniker over a moniker disguising his first moniker as a battery pack.

    He’s so vapid it’s almost sad.

    Not like your vapidity, which is amusing.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 4:14 pm

  200. Well, gee, thanks, munnkey.

    But you didn’t have to surrender: your defeat was obvious to everyone else some time ago, as per the usual process of you gettting your dumb arse kicked.

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 4:22 pm

  201. Castro dead?

    C.L.

    December 13, 2006 at 4:27 pm

  202. Really Cl. That’ll send Fyds and the rest of the leftist rat pack into a tearfilled stupor of grief.

    You see those Mid east women making those clicking sounds with their tongue as a show of grief? That’s what it’s going to be like over the next week or so if the prick really has croaked it.

    Man I’m tired from attending all the Pinochet formalities. Now we have to contend with Castros and the usual babble that he wsn’t all that bad seeing he developed so many medical clinics.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 4:40 pm

  203. Castro dead? Not exactly a surprise – looks like it’s gonna be a good week for democracy.

    Sorry to disappoint you, munnkey, but I suppose you’ve always had a problem with objectivity, or intellectual nous of any kind, for that matter. It’s what makes you such a pushover.

    [awaits ridiculous defence of tyrant by clueless lefty partisans]

    Fyodor

    December 13, 2006 at 4:46 pm

  204. I put Casto and Pinochet on about the same moral plane. I don’t think either quite qualifies as the monsters that Hitler, Stalin and Mao are. So the same reaction. I didn’t celebrate his life and I’m not going to celebrate his death because generally speaking except for those monsters I don’t like celebrating death.

    Jason Soon

    December 13, 2006 at 4:50 pm

  205. [awaits ridiculous defence of tyrant by clueless lefty partisans]

    Yes it will be rediculous, fyds, but it will have that touch of monster loving care some of your friends on the left show when their heroes go to hell.

    But they are not clueless. They know exeactly who they’re cheering for and why.

    Nice tie at trying to cover their back side, though.

    Jase.

    He’s one of the reason i hope there is a god. He needs to logically explain why set up a DNA pattern that allowed a monstorous piece if turd like that to lord it over a nation of innocents for so so long.

    It will have to be a good answer.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 5:01 pm

  206. I wonder who Castro will leave his fortune to.

    I guess capitalism doesn’t apply to the masses

    see link:

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 5:07 pm

  207. Fyodor [on200] you said

    “The alternative to Pinochet wasn’t Marxism. There were any number of alternatives that did not involve tyranny, murder and other human rights violations”.

    Indeed. And the strangest alternative I heard might have been both Chile and Argentina becoming very closely associated with the European Common Market …. but thanks to that bunch of brutal dimwits – Pinochet in Chile and Videla, Galtieri, etc. in Argentina …. it didn’t – and couldn’t – happen. Today, Chile and Argentina in the Euro Zone? Now there’s a thought.

    Boris [on 173]:
    Pinochet was just like any other tin-pot incompetent dictator: he put up a mirage of prosperity – but it was prosperity for foreigners and the local nomenklatura only. That the Chileans have now managed to climb part of the way out of Pinochet’s morass speaks volumes about the tenacity of the Chilean people. By the way, I am certainly no apologist at all for the Castro regime.

    GMB [on 170}
    Lee Kwan-yew did indeed crack down hard on dissidents ….. but once you joined the dominant Peoples Action Party, you got right into the rough-and-tumble of democratic debate; far more robust than in Australia but a lot of it behind doors.. Trouble is, you had to join PAP first before becoming politically active.. Lee was at one end of the spectrum; Pinochet, Mugabe and the Emperor Bokassa way, way down at the other. Lee’s intentions were beneficial; the others’ were malevolent.

    Graham Bell

    December 13, 2006 at 7:35 pm

  208. who is nabs?

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    December 13, 2006 at 8:40 pm

  209. A guy called Nabakov. He can be very funny, although he hasn’t been around here lately.

    skepticlawyer

    December 13, 2006 at 9:08 pm

  210. Oh No. Angry Anderson is back, spoiling for a fight with anyone.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 9:36 pm

  211. I’m a fan of ‘fair and balanced’, Graham, and putting Pinochet in the same grouping as Mugabe and Bokassa is simply factually incorrect. If there is one thing my sojourn on the left taught me, it is their common tendency to engage in ‘immoral equivalency’ – an expression borrowed from Deborah Lipstadt.

    This involves equating people of moderate badness with genuine evil. Lee and Pinochet are actually quite close, empirically and philosophically, although I freely concede I woudn’t have wanted to live under either dictatorship.

    Bokassa is just evil, out and out. Mugabe started at about the same level as Pinochet and Lee, or Castro if you want a politically similar comparison, but has slowly decended. I still wouldn’t lump him in with Bokassa.

    skepticlawyer

    December 13, 2006 at 9:58 pm

  212. Fyodor.

    Getting back to our discussion……..

    You can’t declare victory by declaring yourself the winner. it doesn’t work that way, fyodor. You have to demonstrate why you think i’m wrong and explain how your argument is a better fit.

    You were trying this schtik all through the gold thread sucking in the less able members of our society such as liam and Nabakov who can’t tell the difference between a welfare cheque and monetary economics. it became annoying after the 267th time you declared victory.

    now this is what you have to do……….

    Seeing my views essentially align with those espoused by the Wall Street Journal ob although they were nowhere near as detailed as the 6 points I presented I would like you to tell us why you think your right and i’m wrong.

    Your silence, bluster or rudness will simply be considered another one of you phoney victory dance.

    i’m cheering for you , Fyodor. I know you can do it if you at least try harder.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  213. Birdy
    I’m sorry. Really i am . I brought him back muzzled and firmly tied to the leash, but the little bastard chewed through both and won’t even let us get near him to run a lasso round his fat neck.

    Next time I’ll try and bring him back in a mettle cage.

    JC.

    December 13, 2006 at 10:27 pm

  214. “mettle” 🙂 That one you can’t pass off as a typo.

    fatfingers

    December 14, 2006 at 12:06 am

  215. Fats you caught me there

    I swear it’s like I proof read something…… your is supposed you’re and often i can’t pick it.
    Metal is not mettle but for some reason i wrote that. Who the fuck knows why.

    Good catch.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 12:27 am

  216. Sorry, JC, being a pedant is a big part of my job, and I just came off a shift and haven’t shifted mental gears. BTW, check out my comment on the Jurisprudence for Dummies thread.

    fatfingers

    December 14, 2006 at 12:32 am

  217. Graham, my position is close to that of SL here. I actually knew personally a couple of Chilean scientists, and their posiotion was that
    1) Human rights abuses of Pinochet were wrong
    2) His economic policies were very sensible and while there were difficulties along the way, they led to the prosperity further down the line.

    I give much more weight to this opinion of my colleagues, than any media information, which is always biased one way or the other. And what your information (about economy of Chile) is based on?

    “By the way, I am certainly no apologist at all for the Castro regime.”

    Fine. But until you put Castro squarely between Pinochet and Mugabe, I will assume that you have a double standard. Furthermore, I would prefer if you address my specific points of comparison between Pinochet and Castro above.

    Boris

    December 14, 2006 at 2:03 am

  218. This thread is moving much too fast for a once in a while poster like me. Way too much misinformation being spewed and not enough time to refute all of it.

    But I’ll try.

    BORIS:

    I don’t know what Chilean scientists you were talking to. While you don’t have to be a scientist to declare that human rights abuses are “wrong”, I am curious about their economic assesment. Where were they when Pinochet was letting the Chicago boys run wild? And why do you give so much weight to this opinion of theirs? Is it because they’re chilean? Or because they are scientists? Because to state that media is biased is quite right, but to infer that your friends are not is naive.

    cosmo

    December 14, 2006 at 7:44 am

  219. “The alternative to Pinochet wasn’t Marxism.”

    Is that a trick-statement.

    The alternative to Marxism was Pinochet. You have it completely backwards.

    Pinochet was an infinitely better and more humane choice then Marxism. Of that we can be 100% sure.

    But here’s the thing. The prognosis was extremely bad. Since the Chileans had actually VOTED the bastard Allende in. Which shows how far gone things were.

    But after Pinochet Marxism was dead.

    So on that level he did a bangup job.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 7:58 am

  220. “I do not know how many people Castro killed or tortured.”

    I’ve heard 300 000. Or 100 to 1 over Pinochet.

    But that might include all the murdering he’s done internationally.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 8:00 am

  221. JC:

    The Wall Street Journal piece is fiction. As dishonest an op-ed as I’ve ever seen. But not surprising, considering the source. While a lot of people died in the first few weeks of the coup, this was due entirely to the brutal ministrations of the Junta, not some imaginary civil war. Allende didn’t arm militias. It’s one of the reasons that extreme left groups like the MIR sabotaged a lot of what he was trying to do. Moreover, the army never would have allowed it. The pitiful amount of weapons that groups like the MIR had were confiscated early, and there was next to no resistance to the army anywhere but the Presidential palace. I don’t know where this phony “civil war” shit originated, though I realize why the Pinochet admirers would want to perpetuate this myth. Maybe the Wall Street Journal writer can tell us how many casualties the army suffered heroically fighting the “Allende militias”. What a fucking joke.

    cosmo

    December 14, 2006 at 8:02 am

  222. “Pinochet was a nasty piece of work, but in the end was on the right side (or at least fought against the wrong side). ”

    Perfectly correct. And Mark you were unable to gainsay it. You thought you did but you failed.

    The statement stands.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 8:07 am

  223. ” I don’t know where this phony “civil war” shit originated, though I realize why the Pinochet admirers would want to perpetuate this myth. ”

    Pinochet-admirers?

    Now steady on fella. You just stop your fucking lying here fella.

    Bring on the evidence and less of the lying.

    I myself don’t know enough to actually admire the guy. I assume he was pretty bad.

    I won’t rule out yet that he was a worthy. Because the left could be lying about all sorts of stuff.

    But Pinochet-admirers?

    Name one.

    But we got Allende and Castro admirers standing room only.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 8:11 am

  224. No bird, they were not “too far gone”. Assuming JC was right that the Chilean parliament ordered Pinochet to get rid of Allende after misconduct:

    Pinochet could have been a good soldier and done his job properly – arrest Allende and hand over power to a Parliamentarian who would be appointed temporarily by Parliament and be acting President until another election was held.

    There was never a need to seize power from Parliament, kill more people than necessary to remove Allende and then rule tyrannically for 17 years, torturing thousands and stealing millions.

    Mark Hill

    December 14, 2006 at 8:13 am

  225. GMB:

    The words “Pinochet” and “humane” don’t go together. The alternative to what was happening in Chile, and the rest of Latin America at the time, may have been Socialism, or it may not. That was up to the Chilean voters. They made a choice. It’s called democracy, something you dickheads talk about a lot, but seem to forget about when people make a choice you don’t agree with. Then, it’s ok to torture and murder people you don’t like.

    cosmo

    December 14, 2006 at 8:13 am

  226. MARK HILL: #195

    “Moderate growth is a disaster, if you plan to live a long and happy life.”

    So is extreme poverty. What happened in 1982-83 in Chile was a complete collapse, and a human disaster for the poor and middle class in Chile, who were badly off to begin with. To call what happened trivial is absurd. You make a big deal about others providing blanket statements and assertions, yet you argue with the same tools. How did monetarism save Chile? It didn’t.

    cosmo

    December 14, 2006 at 8:30 am

  227. “The words “Pinochet” and “humane” don’t go together. ”

    Look you fucking idiot. Actually make an argument.

    What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

    How does that refute what I said?

    It doesn’t fucking refute what I said did it!!!!!!

    Don’t be an asshole.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 8:35 am

  228. Don’t “NO BIRD” me Mark.

    Make an argument.

    Now there is no doubt that the statement holds.

    He was fighting on the right side.

    You are being almost as dopey as cosmo.

    Its getting to be offensive this stupidity.

    Mark. Why do you keep on acting like Pinochet is some MAJOR tyrant.

    He wasn’t. He doesn’t even rate. Now thats the fact of the matter or we await some supplementary evidence.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 8:38 am

  229. Dude.

    Your country actually votes in Marxists. Soviets are actively working in South America and have a forward base of sorts in the form of Cuba.

    Your country must be FULL OF MARXISTS if they actually voted them in. Your country is long and skinny and has infinite entry points for insurgents.

    So why the fuck Mark are you telling me the situation wasn’t too ffar gone unless you actually know.

    Don’t make shit up.

    There was hours of fighting before Allende committed suicide.

    Thats a war. That isn’t a bloodless coup if you’ve got Marxists shooting at you.

    If I’ve got that situation I”m going to kill every Marxist with a history of links to Cuba and a history of militarism.

    So I’d act exactly the same in the first few weeks as what I expect Pinochet would.

    Now after that is another matter. Because I don’t know what he did.

    But don’t make stuff up again.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 8:44 am

  230. “How did monetarism save Chile? It didn’t.”

    Really?

    The Washington Post liked to think so, even though they repackaged it as a tool of protectionism to protect Chile from evil imports and FDI.

    Monetarism may not be able to save your economy from collapse, but it sure as hell doesn’t engender collapse either. It provides stable, low and predictable inflation. This creates economic calamities how? The only real critique of this is the Austrian business cycle theory, where credit can be mispriced. But that is even more laissez faire than Friedman was.

    So, monetarism created the collapse, how?

    Mark Hill

    December 14, 2006 at 9:06 am

  231. They didn’t vote in Marxism. He got 36% of the votes. They had a Presidential system so he was decided to be the best leader and executive officer. he does not dictate what legislation is, he can only veto that and be overruled (as he was overhwelmingly censured below).

    Besides, 2/3 of the Chilean lower house ordered Pinochet to depose of him. Hardly a resounding approval of heavy handed Leninist-Marxism.

    Mark Hill

    December 14, 2006 at 9:09 am

  232. Fyodor.
    Getting back to our discussion……..
    You can’t declare victory by declaring yourself the winner. it doesn’t work that way, fyodor. You have to demonstrate why you think i’m wrong and explain how your argument is a better fit.

    No, I declare victory after trashing your arguments and getting nothing but pathetic bluster in return. What YOU have to do is rebut, or come up with fresh tripe to pretend you’re still in the game, rather than crying in the blood bin.

    You were trying this schtik all through the gold thread sucking in the less able members of our society such as liam and Nabakov who can’t tell the difference between a welfare cheque and monetary economics. it became annoying after the 267th time you declared victory.

    Munnkey, if it seems to you like I’m always declaring victory, it’s only because you’re always losing. It’s not my fault you’re a slow learner.

    now this is what you have to do……….

    Seeing my views essentially align with those espoused by the Wall Street Journal ob although they were nowhere near as detailed as the 6 points I presented I would like you to tell us why you think your right and i’m wrong.

    Already have. As I said, your refusal to rebut my critique of your dopey six points is proof that you concede defeat. Shit or get off the pot, moron.

    Your silence, bluster or rudness will simply be considered another one of you phoney victory dance.

    What silence, numbnut? I’ve even gone to the trouble of REPEATING my destruction of your pitiful case, and yet here you are childishly declaring, again, that I haven’t. You’re a clown.

    i’m cheering for you , Fyodor. I know you can do it if you at least try harder.

    Always a cheerleader, never the quarterback – that’s your problem in a nutshell. Your principal purpose in Ozblogistan is cheering on the village idiot. You’re a lightweight, an intellectual punching bag, you deluded nitwit.

    This has all been made clear to you over at Troppo where you were AMAZINGLY stupid enough to take Jason seriously in nominating Birdy’s tripe. And who’s the most nominated commenter? Mr “Ying Yang Thang”. Suck it up, loser.

    Birdy
    I’m sorry. Really i am . I brought him back muzzled and firmly tied to the leash, but the little bastard chewed through both and won’t even let us get near him to run a lasso round his fat neck.

    Next time I’ll try and bring him back in a mettle cage.

    Yeah, you’re realling testing my metal [sic] now, you illiterate trog. Here’s a top tip: try to avoid asserting your superiority when it’s patently obvious to everyone BUT YOU that you’re a deluded mediocrity.

    Now run along and dream up another bullshit argument to pretend you’ve still got game, pansy.

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 9:57 am

  233. Fyodor. I’M SO HAPPY JC INDUCED YOU BACK HERE. BUT YOUR ENCHANTING VISAGE MAKES ME BREAK MY CONCENTRATION. CAN YOU BE A LITTLE LESS GOOD-LOOKING? (EDIT BY ADMIN)

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 11:32 am

  234. Yes, but no refutation, Fyodor. Nothing to show for yourself other than bullshit and abuse.

    Pathetic.

    Sorry Birdy, He got off the leash when i brought home.

    Cosmo Kramer.

    Yes, Of course the Wall Street Journal is wrong and you’re right. That’s because you will yourself the be right.

    exactly like like clown we have here, Fyodor. Nothing to show….. only demanding that you right.

    Both you clowns, take a hike.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 11:48 am

  235. Imagine the arrogance of these Marxists. There they are fighting in the streets. Shooting at the soldiers to keep the revolution going.

    Or is that wrong cosmo? The wall street journal made it all up I suppose?

    Parish quoted Quiggin trying to lay on equivalence between Castro and Pinochet.

    These people are just so callous they make you want to puke.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 12:06 pm

  236. Hey do we have any confirmation of this 28000 tortured Farrel claim?

    Because its the Marxists who started the violence here. And putting down a Marxist insurection with less then 3000 dead is about as good as it gets when you think about it.

    This Pinochet looks to be no dope. He looks like a fella that was competent at his job.

    Its no easy thing winning wars. And one wouldn’t want to give the Marxists any sort of headstart since we’ve seen how these things can play out elsewhere.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 12:22 pm

  237. That’s right, munnkey, spit the dummy. Your incompetence is transparent and you’re too gutless to front in even your own cack-handed arguments anymore.

    Pissweak, loser, absolutely pissweak.

    As for taking a hike, you ASKED me to come here, moron.

    You two statist clowns should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. You’re the laughingstock of Ozblogs.

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 12:28 pm

  238. I’m just thinking how gutless these leftists are.

    Over at Prodeo there is Kim putting in the boot. But she won’t debate me.

    And then you go over to Troppo and there is Parish doing the same thing.

    They talk about it as if one has somehow compromised ones ethical standing by trying to debate what happened intelligently.

    But really what you find out is that they are not only cowards but they are also horribly callous to boot.

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 12:30 pm

  239. Fyodor says:

    “And who’s the most nominated commenter? Mr “Ying Yang Thang”. Suck it up, loser.”

    I always thought you had a little more substance to you Fyds. Seriously, i did…. until I saw that comment.

    Nababov is a pathetic loser in life. He tested Jason’s patience so much that he was told he wouldn’t be missed if he never showed up here.

    And we all know the reason why, don’t we?

    Don’t you?

    The reason is that he is a vapid, boastful, ignorant prick who wastes people’s time by writing hogwash. You obviously relate to that.

    The “ying and yand thang” was possibly the dumbest, silliest, most vapid comment I have ever read about the labor market. It was so pathetic as to be almost funny until I realized it was coming from that half-witted moron.

    And you support the vapid dick, Fyodor? You’re even more pathetic than he is because you ought to know better.

    Get a grip. On reality.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 12:38 pm

  240. Hey whats Parish like in person?

    Is he as much of a gutless weed as his online persona implies?

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 12:42 pm

  241. “Jason’s Pet Shop”
    .

    Well next time, I’ll bring you in inside a sound proof cage.

    You harbor such anger, Fyds. Such visceral anger that it ought to be studied in medical school.

    Just relax and take comfort in the fact that you’re now with friends.

    Yea, i know leaving Nabkov behind was troubling for you, but in the end you’re much better off without the vapid one.

    How about lunch, seeing you turned me down for dinner?

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 12:57 pm

  242. Calm down, Birdy. Munnkey’s going to lose his grip if you keep jumping around.

    Have no fear, Pet Shop Boys: I’m not staying.

    Munnkey attempting charm is far more revolting than anything you could throw at me.

    “How about lunch, seeing you turned me down for dinner?”

    Hmmh. Gee, let me think…

    [the world stops for a nanosecond or three]

    …no.

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 1:15 pm

  243. [more OT commentary will earn you the moderation queue]

    GMB

    December 14, 2006 at 1:23 pm

  244. Who deleted my penultimate comment?

    Identify yourself.

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 1:31 pm

  245. Umm

    Mine went missing too. Did you have something to do with Fyds?

    Mine was a invite for Breakfast seeing you turned down lunch and dinner.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 1:47 pm

  246. Umm

    Mine went missing too. Did you have something to do with Fyds?

    Mine was a invite for Breakfast seeing you turned down lunch and dinner.

    Yairs. Saw that. Of course I didn’t have anything to do with the deletion. Unlike you clowns, I’m not in favour of censorship, even for reprobates like you.

    Either this blog has “technical difficulties”, or – I’m guessing – SL’s trigger-finger got itchy over the delete button again. And neither of us even mentioned pork pies…

    FMD, this blog has gone to the dogs.

    P.S. re: breakfast, the answer is “no”. Surprised?

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 1:53 pm

  247. fyds

    That leaves afternoon tea then. I ain’t getting out of bed for morning tea.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 2:03 pm

  248. Mayhap SL wants this thread to be about Pinochet or something.

    Just theorisin’

    FDB

    December 14, 2006 at 2:06 pm

  249. Ah. Well if that’s the case maybe she’s also a lying hypocrite:

    “I will make one final comment: strong moderation may attract those people who like strong moderation, but for those who don’t, they wind up at our place.”

    I guess we’ll find out when whoever admits to censoring the thread.

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 2:19 pm

  250. Ah, but is she a lying lefty hypocrite?

    Mark Hill

    December 14, 2006 at 2:25 pm

  251. Fyodor
    I deleted a few of JC and GMB’s comments as they were just personal sniping in order to bring things back on topic. I certainly don’t remember deleting anything by you. I have done this before (when sniping between Munn and JC) got out of control and make no apologies for it. This is wholly within precedent.

    And as far as i’m concerned you can fuck off and are no longer welcome here.

    1) The very first comment you made since returning here was to diss this blog as going downhill presumably because we haven’t permanently banned JC and Bird.
    2) You seem to take the glee in sniping and then complaining about the blog going downhill.
    3) Then you have the nerve to make demands as if we’re your fucking servants.And then to huff and puff about some trivial comment of yours which I didn’t even notice going missing. I was in a meeting, some of us have work to do, fucking underemployed loser.
    4) Bird has been put on moderation until he calms down. Nothing has been done to you but as far as I’m concerned you can fuck off of your own volition. I’m sick and tired of your childish tantrums.

    Jason Soon

    December 14, 2006 at 2:26 pm

  252. Jason

    I always maintained it’s your property and you a free to do whatever you want. Banning people? it’s your right and no one should make demands. You can feel free to delete anything of mine and I have no right to complain.

    I also want to say that you run a great blog, the subjects are intereting and SL was a great add to the group.

    Anyone who disses her is a hypocrite.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 2:34 pm

  253. Right of reply, Jase?

    Last comment here:

    1. This blog is a pale shadow of its former self and is getting worse. You’ve been told this by many people and you simply don’t listen. This has nothing to do with banning people, but control of the blog and setting the tone. You’ve been far too tolerant of worthless, disruptive commenters, and they have set the tone for the blog, not you. You encourage Birdy and JC when you should be castigating, and the pathetic failure of your half-arsed attempt at getting Birdy to apologise for his disgusting insult to FDB proves it.

    2. “Take glee in sniping”? I don’t see where the glee comes into it. If I’m critical, it’s because I see something wrong. If you can’t take criticism, that’s your problem.

    3. If you delete my posts I want to know why. You boast about the “robust debate” at this blog, then censor inconsistently. Don’t give me that bullshit line about precedent. The deletions were practically random. You’re a hypocrite. If you don’t want people to complain about censorship, don’t censor them.

    4. You deleted my comment with no warning and no explanation. Don’t tell me I’m throwing childish tantrums when you ban me for complaining about it. You’re banning me now not because of anything I said but because you’ve just blown your stack. Grow up. I only came back here to pursue the argument with JC after getting booted from Troppo. As I said, I was leaving anyway.

    I don’t know what’s going on with you at the moment, Jase, but you’re losing it, and have been for some time. If I thought it would make a difference, I’d give you a much franker opinion.

    Get your shit together, dude.

    Fyodor

    December 14, 2006 at 3:02 pm

  254. Fyds

    You criticise every single blog you hang at.

    1.You have criticised LP, which as far as a lefty type blog goes is the best around.

    2. You have criticised Ken’s blog and as far as a middle of the road blogs goes that is the best there is.

    3. You have criticised Quigglns blog which i am prepared to excuse for the moment

    3 you have cricticised this blog because, er well other people have criticised it, Meanwhile it is the best blog going for Libertarian thinking and jase and the rest of the crew do a good job of putting threads together that we read for free.

    In other words you have had a go at every single blog you hang out at becasue it doesn’t conform to your exactling standards.

    You know what? Why don’t you get your own fucking blog and see what you can do. Meanwhile stop whining like a big mary.

    I guess afternoon tea is now out of the question, you mental runt.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 3:18 pm

  255. “You encourage Birdy and JC when you should be castigating, ”

    and no, pygmy brain, Soon has never encouraged me. In fact nearly all of Jases remarks directed to me have been to castigate me about something. But unlike you, you emotionally undernourished little kid, I take the hit and move along.

    So leave the guy alone.

    I hope you do stay because when you are good you offer soemthing worthwhile to read (it’s been a long, long time), but grow up.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 3:26 pm

  256. ‘You deleted my comment with no warning and no explanation. Don’t tell me I’m throwing childish tantrums when you ban me for complaining about it”

    Firstly don’t patronise me and misrepresent me, Fyodor. You haven’t been ‘banned’. I’ve merely applied moral suasion just like I applied moral suasion to Bird to apologise to FDB – one measure you and many others deemed unsatisfactory. In this case I’ve told you that you can fuck off if you’re unhappy with my not finding time to write a fucking thesis everytime I delete a comment.

    As for not warning you about deletions
    1) As i said, as I have done with exchanges between JC and Munn that have proven fruitless I quickly deleted a few comments here and there to defuse the little tangential stoush that was brewing. I was in a hurry because I thought it was in danger of overspilling and I wanted to defuse it as quickly as possible. In te process I must’ve accidentally deleted one of your, oh vengeful God.

    Munn and JC have to their credit never complained when I did this, not to mention turning up on other threads and pursuing the issue and hurling your anger and accusations at SL

    2) I did this quickly and yes I did this kind of randomly instead of doing consecutive deletions because this thread is over 200 fucking comments long and it would have taken me forever to delete, be taken back up the top of the thread, scroll down, delete some more etc.

    3) I then had to rush off to a meeting so excuse me for not writing a fucking thesis about which of your oh so intellectually profound comments I deleted, sanctimonous fuckwit. I come back and find that you had gone on to other threads and hurled accusations around and you’re surprised that I’m pissed off.

    4) It’s obvious now that you’ve a scew loose, Fyodor. You come on here just to fulfill your little vendettas and then whinge about discussion being brought down. Everytime you turn up on the web it’s just to keep up this little Batman-Joker dynamic you have with JC or to engage in meta-commentary or to make animal noises. Your one little substantive commentary on Pinochet was an exception but you’re really motivated by nothing more than vendetta nowadays.

    5) if you think it’s so easy to run a blog go and run your own, fuckwit. I don’t have time to write a fucking thesis for your edification on what I choose to delete on the spur of the moment to defuse a flame war. As I said JC and Munn have never complained, You seem to think you’re some sort of royalty whose arse I should lick every time.

    As JC says you have a problem with every blog. You come up with the most convoluted and contradictory reasons for boycotting one blog and then another, whether it’s Lp or this. I can give a fuck where you patronise anymore. As I said, you’re not banned – you’re not even under moderation – so don’t you dare misrepresent me again but as far as I’m concerned you’re persona non grata.

    Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    Jason Soon

    December 14, 2006 at 6:43 pm

  257. And GMB
    If you’re reading check your email. You’re going to be in moderation for at least a few days for your part in this affair and others.

    Jason Soon

    December 14, 2006 at 7:10 pm

  258. Shit Jason, I’ve just got back from work. I haven’t looked at Catallaxy since lunch. I haven’t even read my email. Will go away and find out what’s happened.

    Sorry!

    skepticlawyer

    December 14, 2006 at 7:23 pm

  259. Top-notch rant, Jason. With spelling mistakes and repetition just enough to ram home that it was stream-of-consciousness, un-proofread, straight-from-the-heart indginant fury.

    Now have yourself a little lie down, yeah? Shame you don’t like cricket, as there’s an absorbing yet boring spectacle going on right now that would be just the ticket.

    FDB

    December 14, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  260. Haven’t deleted anything, Fyodor. Haven’t been here to. Unlike some others, I have a reasonably demanding dayjob.

    Think about that before you fling accusations around, eh.

    And if I do delete something, you’ll know about it!

    skepticlawyer

    December 14, 2006 at 7:47 pm

  261. Jeez, boyo, I never wanna get on the wrong side of you Jase.

    That’s the best/ worst bollicking I’ve seen in Ozblogdom. From now on I’m gonna be the best behaved here.

    FDB’s comment was a little uncalled for. As always he’s focusing on the typos while the story goes over his head.

    FDB’s attempt at reviewing books at school was to find all the typos and write about it.

    JC.

    December 14, 2006 at 8:31 pm

  262. well I’m an Aries. When I get pissed off I really get pissed off (that was a joke btw, I’m not into astrology).

    Anyway having blown off steam, it is night time so I’ll leave the Bird cage open till I wake up tomorrow so I don’t have 12 dozen comments to approve the next morning. But back in he goes during the day till he serves sufficient time for being so annoying today (yes I’m talking about you GMB – so just so you know you haven’t escaped punishment). Being a moody Yahweh there’s no saying how long this routine will go on.

    Jason Soon

    December 14, 2006 at 11:58 pm

  263. Marc (nephew) and I just sat here and read most of this thread and pissed ourselves laughing. Sorry, the various eating invitations were just classic. And the Bird cage gag…

    skepticlawyer

    December 15, 2006 at 12:38 am

  264. Sl

    I know , I just read it myself and it was a cracker of a thread.

    There’s great comments, terrific putdowns, guys getting thrown out of the saloon by the saloon keeper. It as like a western saloon bar fight. My kind of town.

    Of course I knew he would turn down the invites. believe me I would have been shitting myself if had taken me up.

    There’s me at the table and a gaggle of Russian looking hoods show up with a very meanacing look asking me to come outside because we need to talk.

    A that time I would have said I was Homer Paxton, just to be on the safe side.

    Yea, like I would have fixed date.

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 1:17 am

  265. The Bird cage gag was great wasn’t it?

    Jase is actually one of the best putdown artists of all time. I read his and I marvel at his abilities on that score, making me extremely jealous that he’s better without really trying.

    I really try hard with mine, but I am not a natural like Jase. He shouldn’t hide it as often as he does.

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 1:21 am

  266. I just cannot understand you Fyodor.

    You claim not to be a Marxist. So what is it th(HE’S LONELY!!!!!!)at motivates you?

    If you were a mar(HE’S A LONELY GUY)xist like Trotsky I’d understand. Really I would.

    Because communism is the enslavement of everyone, via the theft of everything, in the context of an obsession with blood sacrifce, for an insincere goal which amounts to a childish fantasy.

    So if you are a Marxist pre(HE’S OH!..SO!.. LONELY)tending to be a right-winger let us know. Please let us know.

    I’m begging you let us know.

    Otherwise the intrigue of w(OH………….LONESOME FYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!)hy it is that you act the way you do will confuse and disturb me forever.

    Its just the same mystery as what pertains to Naba(THEY’RE SO LONELY)kov????

    The exact same enigma.

    I just don’t ge(THEY..! ARE..! SO..! LOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHNELY…..

    THEY ARE JUST SO LOOOOOOHHHHNLY…..

    SO-LOAN-LEE!!!)t it?????

    Neither of you ever shows the slightest interest in the truth of falsehood of the subject matter you are discussing.

    Yet here you two are on blogsville, night after night.

    Its MORE then a hobby. You are both driven people. So if it isn’t closet Ma(OH…….LONESOME FEEEEEEEEE)rxism what the hell is it?

    If you were really a right-winger why did you for so lo(YESYESYESYESYES
    THEY ARE SO LOAAAAAAAN-LEE

    SO VERY LOAAAAAAAAAAA-LEE!)ng give the most well-meaning of the right-wingers the hardest of swarming-bully-boy ti(THEY’RE THE LOOOAHNLEELOHNLY…. GUYS…THE!GUYS)mes?

    Because I …..for a contrasting example……don’t do this stuff for FUN!!!!

    And I’ve got a lot better things to do. I have been on a war footing since October 2002.

    And I only bought this computer when the killings started in mid-2003 because conservative Americans were misreading the murder in Iraq and did not realise that they weren’t going away.

    So I’m really an AGRESSIVE GOODY-TWO-SHOES.

    I’m Richie Cunningham disguised as an abruptly (and for the first time) fattening Touretz-syndrome-sufferer.

    And I want to CHANGE things.

    And believe-it-or-not I want to save lives.

    Thats why I work so hard to neutralise Lambert who I hope one day will come back to the civilised brother-and-sisterhood of puny humans.

    But what about you a(LONESOME!LONESOME!LONESOME)nd Nabakov?

    If you aint marxists then I gues I’ll ju(ONE HAND ON THE KEYBOARD ONE WINDOW ON THE PORN SITE…..LONESOME LONESOME LONESOME LONESOME…THATS-HOW LONESOME!LONESOME!LONESOME)st never understand.

    I give up.

    I guess I get too big-headed sometimes. You know a fella aint always proud of everything about him.

    But I did like to tell myself as an outside observer of puny humans……. that I understood the sapiens just that little bit better then pretty much everyone else.

    I foolishly fancied myself that while there were some that understood the species as individuals………. and others that understood their wider group behaviour……….

    I had the completely delusional vanity that I understood both just that little bit further and just that little bit deeper then anyone else.

    But “I Quit… I Give Up…. Nothings Good Enough…”

    But you two…. That is to say Fyodor and Nabakov. You two confuse and mystify me.

    I cannot figu(THEY’RE THE LONELY LONELY GUYS)re out how you tick.

    This is my Waterloo and I must say CONGRATULATIONS. I’m stumped well and truly.

    And I suppose that there ARE INDEED FLAWS to MY species and this is the reason the main body of our species died out 23,000 years ago.

    And our flaws must be the reason that our slim surviving gene pool is comprised primarily of individuals reduced to doing stand-in-work on Buffy just to save make-up time.

    The moti(THEY!…ARE!…SO!….LONELY!)vations of Fyodor and Nabakov are an endless riddle to me…..

    AH……..

    THE MYSTERIES OF LIFE!

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 2:10 am

  267. Birdy

    They’re easy to figure out.

    Nabakov is a boastful ignorant prick with a personality disorder. The fucking idiot thinks he is impressing people by teling them who he’s met, how many businesses he’s run (probably to the ground), how rich he is and wants everyone to know he is a high Tory (whatever the fuck that means)
    In other words he is as you said … vapid…… and totally self absorbed.

    He also cannot stand thinking there is someone better or richer than he is seeing these things form his status and values. In other words he is a total dickhead. Very Melbourne I might add.

    Fyds

    Is a little diferent. I think he has more substance about him. He knows his stuff as far as conventional economics goes and thinks pretty highly of himself.

    I actually don’t think he is as bad as the other one, which isn’t saying much. But he’s very argumentative and will try to lie and distort his way through an argument until you walk away in disgust and he declares victory.

    He is actually also fairly right wing.

    If there was a choice as to who to save, you’d want both to drown and watch with glee, but if foced you’d have to save Fyodor.

    That’s my two cents worth.

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 2:44 am

  268. “There’s me at the table and a gaggle of Russian looking hoods show up with a very meanacing look asking me to come outside because we need to talk.”

    No need to mess up your suit.

    Just refer them to me.

    I have a bit of a grudge going with descendants of the Rus.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 2:44 am

  269. “He also cannot stand thinking there is someone better or richer than he is seeing these things form his status and values.”

    This JIVE was around before.

    But not in spades.

    This latest emphasis comes from when I started taunting him for being a ‘lonely lonely man’.

    What happened then is he picked a fight with Jason and did a Liam-like staged-walkout.

    Ever since then I figure he’s been embellishing his online persona to escape the guilty-as-charged accusation that he is a lonely lonely man.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 2:48 am

  270. I’d encourage Nabakov to float by pushing Fyodors head down as an act of TRIAGE.

    Then I’d decide how to take control of the situation when they were both gasping for breath.

    Statesmanship can sometimes mean manipulating the bad guys to fight eachother.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 2:51 am

  271. Actually they would probably both die quickly in an impulsive death embrace and I would be unable to do a damn thing about it.

    Thats just how lonely these two are.

    They’re the lonely lonely guys.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 2:52 am

  272. GMB #229 SAYS: “The words “Pinochet” and “humane” don’t go together. ”

    Look you fucking idiot. Actually make an argument.

    What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

    How does that refute what I said?

    It doesn’t fucking refute what I said did it!!!!!!

    Don’t be an asshole.”

    I SAY: Gee, I guess I was too subtle. I meant Pinochet was a murdering coward. Clear enough? The evidence for this is overwhelming. One only needs to know how to read to find it. That’s not too much to ask, is it? That you actually know something about what you type?

    Now, actually make an argument, and I’ll be happy to set you straight. What do you want to know?

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 3:12 am

  273. No you dope.

    Thats your CONCLUSION.

    Thats what you are suppossed to be ARGUING FOR.

    And you’ve failed.

    And ‘this is why you are a failure in marriage… because yoursir are a jerk’.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 3:15 am

  274. Kramer
    As an aside whats your position on Castro?

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 3:24 am

  275. JC SAYS: “Cosmo Kramer.

    Yes, Of course the Wall Street Journal is wrong and you’re right. That’s because you will yourself the be right.

    exactly like like clown we have here, Fyodor. Nothing to show….. only demanding that you right.

    Both you clowns, take a hike.”

    I SAY: Wow. I guess if some snapperhead on the Wall Street Journal says it, it MUST be true.
    What a fucking riot. The blind leading the blind.
    Word to the wise: The Wall Street Journal is not the unedited word of God.

    I am stating that Allende was a courageous, profoundly humanistic and honorable man. His economic policies, mistakes, and the like can be debated because he was flawed like any other individual, and he was badly served by some “allies”, but he was a democrat who respected the constitution and did everything he could to resolve Chile’s problems in that framework.
    He was actually going to call a plebescite on his government. No concentration camps. No torture. No murders. No shutting down of the opposition controlled media. No restrictions on freedom of assembly, even for the seditious facists of Fatherland and Liberty. All the fucking talk about “the horrors of socialism” from the Chilean right, and the alleged Constitution violations was just that, talk. For when push came to shove, we all saw who the real tyrants were. Who really respected democracy. Who really defended freedom.
    Who really lived, and died, by the ideals of democracy and personal integrity.
    And who do you think that was, JC? Was it Pinochet, who only days before the coup swore his allegiance to the government? We all know what he went on to do. Was it Mendoza, who proclaimed himself head of Police, a drunkard and lackey that the Junta themselves deposed after he became an embarrasement? Or Merino, another lackey who, with a straight face, declared to the UN there were “maybe a few thousand” political prisoners, even as the firing squads and torture centers were busy? Or was it Leigh, who eventually couldn’t stomach the human rights violations under the rule he helped establish and Pinochet’s refusal to return power to civilian rule and was the first of the Junta to be deposed? Or was it the right wing politicians, who, knowing they couldn’t defeat Allende democratically, decided they had enough of democracy. Like the opportunistic cowards they were, they called on the army to save them or as General Prats, another constitutionalist the Pinochet regime ousted and later murdered in Buenos Aires, put it, they “call the army to do their dirty work, and then run and hide”.
    That’s what happened. The right was ready to sacrifice the very ideals they purported to believe in, for the opportunity to regain power. Allende died defending his ideals, the principle of democracy, and the rights of the poor.
    That’s why Chile is so quoted by people. Because the contrast between Allende and the treasonous cowards who conspired to depose him is so marked.

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 4:18 am

  276. JC:

    My position on Castro is mixed. I’ve never been to Cuba. The people I’ve had a chance to talk to, including Cubans who’ve recently arrived here, also have mixed reports. Castro led a small guerrilla movement that grew into a revolution because the people in Cuba supported that revolution. Things before Castro were very bad for most Cubans. Cubans were willing to support Castro. A pitiful band of poorly armed and trained guerrillas could never succeed otherwise. And sure, there were executions in the immediate aftermath. The difference here between Castro and Pinochet should be obvious. Castro knew who was fighting him. Most of the people who he executed were people who had actively tried to kill him and his movement. And even if I concede that there was people executed that shouldn’t have been, this is true of the end of any war. It is even true of the aftermath of WW2 in Europe, when the Allies executed people who had claimed only a marginal connection to Hitler.
    There was no war in Chile. That is a myth even a child can see through. For if you were familiar with the way the coup was prepared, you would know that the Army made sure that leftist groups like the MIR were stripped of any arms they might have in the hours and days leading up to the event, a treatment that was not extended to armed right wing groups, and purged all officers that might disagree with the coup. A few hours of doomed resistance by a small group at the Moneda led by Allende, after they were ATTACKED, does not constitute a war, much as GMB might want to think it does. Contrary to what the moron in the WSJ says, The Rettig Report states that 2/3 of the political murders attributed to the Junta occurred AFTER the first year. Later, Pinochet tried to claim that the abuses were commited by army personnel acting on their own. This is the same guy who said “Not a leaf moves in Chile unless I know about it.”
    Castro’s mentality, shaped by the war against Batista, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Missile crisis in 1962, the base at Guantanamo, the embargo imposed by the US, and the constant threats against his life by the CIA and others, is a siege mentality. He thinks that a return to multiparty democracy will only make it easier for the forces that had Cuba under their grip before and were content to let Cubans rot in poverty as long as there were enough waiters at the Casinos in Havana to do the same again. I don’t agree with it, frankly. But I can understand it. That said, Cuba needs to return to democracy. The Cuban people need to decide whether they still believe in Castro’s vision. It’s been time for this for a while. Maybe Castro’s death will start the process. It must be, however, internal.

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 5:15 am

  277. GMB #275:

    Now I’m starting to think you’re just a loonie. C’mon, man. What do you want to know?

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 5:21 am

  278. The Economist (print edition) piles on:

    “…If the coup did indeed rescue Chile from an elected government that was Marxist-dominated—and thus anti-democratic—was it justified? The answer is no…With Chileans cowed, the Chicago Boys could work as if in a laboratory, with no regard for social costs. They made mistakes: a fixed exchange rate and unregulated bank privatisations triggered a massive recession and financial collapse in 1982-83. More pragmatic policies and a renewal of growth followed. But it took the return of democracy in 1990, with its ability to bestow legitimacy, to create an investment-led boom and a large fall in poverty… Even if history bothers to remember that he privatised the pension system, that should not wipe away the memory of the torture, the “disappeared” and the bodies dumped at sea. His defenders—who include Britain’s Lady Thatcher—really should know better.”

    (via Economonitor)

    Daniel Barnes

    December 15, 2006 at 6:59 am

  279. DANIEL:

    As far as I know, the privatization of pensions was a disaster for Chilean workers. The military themselves kept their old pension plans. Maybe they knew something the rest didn’t.

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 7:23 am

  280. Cosmo:
    >As far as I know, the privatization of pensions was a disaster for Chilean workers.

    I’ve heard the same. I was going to add a suitably sarcastic comment, but I’ve got my big client Christmas extravaganza today and don’t have time to discuss the intricacies of Chilean social security schemes…;-)

    Daniel Barnes

    December 15, 2006 at 7:28 am

  281. Riiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhht

    “My position on Castro is mixed. ”

    But your position on Pinochet isn’t.

    Whose the lunatic?

    One imposes communism on his country at a severe cost. The other saves his country from communism, at VERY LITTLE HUMAN COST comparatively speaking.

    And you sick, callous nutjob you’re neutral on the one that is easy to assess and totally certain on the man who is difficult to assess.

    The marxists started the civil war. Pinochet ended it and restored the former institutions.

    A better comparison for Augusto might be with AugustUS. Who ended the civil war and brought a measure of peace but did not re-establish the institutions of the Republic once the emergency was over.

    In that sense Pinochet comes out rather good in the comparison.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 8:16 am

  282. ““…If the coup did indeed rescue Chile from an elected government that was Marxist-dominated—and thus anti-democratic—was it justified?”

    They are wrong and being ridiculous. Not only was it justified. It was legal and a moral necessity.

    This is pure idiocy from the Economist.

    Formerly one of the best magazines of its type in the world. Its seriously gone downhill.

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 8:19 am

  283. “There was no war in Chile. ”

    You are lying. Not just about this but about everything else to.

    What do you mean there was no war?

    You are lying.

    Explain your lies!

    GMB

    December 15, 2006 at 8:23 am

  284. Kramer says:

    “My position on Castro is mixed. ”

    You just wasted my time,

    Daniel Barners

    The economist article is quoting someone. Who is it? You can’t trust anyone down there . Those idiots have this romantic view of socialism.

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 10:59 am

  285. This is truly one of the greatest threads of all time.
    It has something for everyone

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 11:36 am

  286. JC, the economist has a tradition of not having the writers name to the article.

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    December 15, 2006 at 11:43 am

  287. “With Chileans cowed, the Chicago Boys could work as if in a laboratory, with no regard for social costs. They made mistakes: a fixed exchange rate and unregulated bank privatisations triggered a massive recession and financial collapse in 1982-83.”

    You’ve been duped again Daniel

    “Social costs” – just what the hell are they? Removing inflation, removing the subsidies to inefficient sectors which are paid for at the expense of everyone else? What net costs does this entail?

    Fixed exchange rates are hardly a Friedmanite or Chicago school idea. You simply can’t have inflation targeting and a fixed exchange rate.

    Unregulated banking causes recession and financial collapse? Garbage. At worst you will get a small run. Runs were absorbed by the free banking State of New York by private credit arrangements. These never were the antecedents of any recession.

    None of the above actually cause recessions or financial collapse. At worst, the fixed exchange rate has to end.

    The Economist – written by non-economists.

    Mark Hill

    December 15, 2006 at 11:48 am

  288. Homer
    The article’s writer was quoting someone.

    In any event, i think you need to sit down and read all the stuff ABL is putting up. It’s flawless economics.

    you, Barnes, Cosmo Kramer and the rest of the gaggle lovers may actually learn something.

    JC.

    December 15, 2006 at 12:35 pm

  289. GMB SAYS: “One imposes communism on his country at a severe cost. The other saves his country from communism, at VERY LITTLE HUMAN COST comparatively speaking.
    And you sick, callous nutjob you’re neutral on the one that is easy to assess and totally certain on the man who is difficult to assess.”

    I SAY: Castro didn’t “impose communism”. He won the support of the population. He started with a handful of people and even fewer weapons. He couldn’t impose anything. The fuckers like Batista that were content to grow rich whoring the country out to the yanks while the majority of the country languished in poverty might have felt that way, of course. As for the “severe cost”, why don’t you fill me in on that please. Go on. It should be interesting.
    As for Pinochet, well, you already know what I think.

    GMB SAYS:
    “The marxists started the civil war. Pinochet ended it and restored the former institutions…
    In that sense Pinochet comes out rather good in the comparison.”

    I SAY: What civil war are you talking about, snapperhead? You persist with this delusion of yours. The term “war” implies that there are two sides. Pinochet was a murdering thug who pulled off a coup and then proceeded to brutalize an entire country through torture, murder and intimidation. He doesn’t compare well to anybody.

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 2:38 pm

  290. Everyone:
    Still going!! I thought this would have petered out by now. Very interesting. Shall download and read later IF/when I get time (exceptionally busy in the off-screen world for the next week or so). Cheers …. and Happy Stoushing.

    Graham Bell

    December 15, 2006 at 3:55 pm

  291. ScepticLawyer:
    ((off-thread / off-topic)) The museum is homeless. Bureaucratic idiots – and they call this the Clever Counrty???

    Graham Bell

    December 15, 2006 at 3:59 pm

  292. MARK HILL SAYS:”You’ve been duped again Daniel
    “Social costs” – just what the hell are they? Removing inflation, removing the subsidies to inefficient sectors which are paid for at the expense of everyone else? What net costs does this entail?”

    I SAY: What the hell are social costs? How about doubling the poverty rate? How about levels of unemployment that at one point reached 34.6%? How about in increase in the percentage of people without adequate housing from 27% to 40%? How about income differentials between the poorest and the richest that, from 1969 – 1988, increased by more than 123%? Never mind the fact that Santiago has become one of the most polluted cities in the world. Do you know what unemployment of that nature does to people Mark? Do you understand what “social costs” are now?

    MARK HILL SAYS:
    “Unregulated banking causes recession and financial collapse? Garbage. At worst you will get a small run. Runs were absorbed by the free banking State of New York by private credit arrangements. These never were the antecedents of any recession.
    None of the above actually cause recessions or financial collapse. At worst, the fixed exchange rate has to end.
    The Economist – written by non-economists.”

    I SAY: The economy was subjected to totalitarian libertarian doctrine. Public enterprises were given away to the junta’s supporters with virtually no money down. The result was mass bankruptcy, economic collapse, and a polarization of wealth and political power. The Chicago Boys set out to make socialism irreversible by selling off as many state enterprises as possible. But there was little money to buy them, so the government sold them on credit, accepting IOUs instead of money.

    The aim was simply to get property into private hands, regardless of how this occurred. So the government gave away companies for no money down. The idea was that the buyers would pay the government out of their earnings, ending up with the companies without having to put up money but paying money into the national treasury rather than draining it, on the theory that government enterprise was inherently bureaucratic and money-losing.

    The theory had no counterpart in reality, but was a figment of the neoliberal imagination. Most of the sales naturally were to cronies of the military, who took over the companies and simply kept the income for themselves. They sent as much of it abroad as they could, and then let the companies go bankrupt. Their objective was a short-term gain, because they lived in the short run. So by 1980, within about five years, most of the companies reverted to government ownership. The first wave of privatization then ended in collapse.

    cosmo

    December 15, 2006 at 4:51 pm

  293. Give it up Cosmo.

    Your ‘facts’ won’t pierce the shiny armour of ideology.

    FDB

    December 15, 2006 at 5:08 pm

  294. “totalitarian libertarian doctrine”

    Never heard of that one before.

    fatfingers

    December 15, 2006 at 5:15 pm

  295. You see cosmo, you probably agree with me on more than you think. I object to the nuances of the commentary, not criticism of Pinochet! remember, sic semper tyrannis.

    “I SAY: What the hell are social costs? How about doubling the poverty rate? How about levels of unemployment that at one point reached 34.6%? How about in increase in the percentage of people without adequate housing from 27% to 40%? How about income differentials between the poorest and the richest that, from 1969 – 1988, increased by more than 123%? Never mind the fact that Santiago has become one of the most polluted cities in the world. Do you know what unemployment of that nature does to people Mark? Do you understand what “social costs” are now?”

    Now I don’t dispute any of that cosmo. What I firstly object to is the Economist’s use of such a nebulous term when in fact they are talking about economic costs. They were implying that a successful policy had “other costs” that could not be counted. Obviously they failed, they couldn’t succeed, they had a totalitarian ruler who stifled creativity and who was a plunderer and thief – totally abusing and removing any certainty over private property rights – which Fernando de Soto has pointed out is the core reason for South American poverty [and quite obviously, the costs were counted, thereby not the nebulous and mystical identity hinted to by the Economist]. Can you name a liberal democracy that has used the economic rationalism model and been worse off? What I secondly object to is the idea that Pinochet’s disastrous rule is any kind of empirical proof against monetarism (admittedly, he didn’t use it and he was advised not to), cutting taxes, reducing distortions imposted by taxes and regulation, privatising and reducing Government spending to levels where projects have a positive rate of return.

    “The economy was subjected to totalitarian libertarian doctrine. Public enterprises were given away to the junta’s supporters with virtually no money down. The result was mass bankruptcy, economic collapse, and a polarization of wealth and political power. The Chicago Boys set out to make socialism irreversible by selling off as many state enterprises as possible. But there was little money to buy them, so the government sold them on credit, accepting IOUs instead of money.”

    I might do these in bite sizes. First of all you begin your statement with an oxymoron. Social and economic freedoms become inseparable at both the extremes of freedom and totalitarianism. Furthermore he was a thief like described above which ruined any permanent investment of capital. Your criticism of his privatisations only go half way. A lot of libertarians would tell you that our Government gets it wrong too, by not privatising enough and by selling it off. It should be gifted in equal allotments of shares or cash to citizens. Now you mention the irreversibility of the privatisations. Note that the current performance of the Chilean economy is in part due to the efficiency changes made possible by the previous privatisations – like why Howard is dishonest in not crediting Paul Keating for many financial and microeconomic reforms domestically. I actually don’t get your last sentence. if they were expensive they should have been gifted or been offered globally at a fair price. If they were sold on credit, no liberal of any stripe would regard the Government being the issuer of the loan as a good policy.

    “The aim was simply to get property into private hands, regardless of how this occurred. So the government gave away companies for no money down. The idea was that the buyers would pay the government out of their earnings, ending up with the companies without having to put up money but paying money into the national treasury rather than draining it, on the theory that government enterprise was inherently bureaucratic and money-losing.”

    If true, that is just wrong. Again, they should have been gifted or sold on the open market. The Treasury would have got more money this way.

    “The theory had no counterpart in reality, but was a figment of the neoliberal imagination. Most of the sales naturally were to cronies of the military, who took over the companies and simply kept the income for themselves. They sent as much of it abroad as they could, and then let the companies go bankrupt. Their objective was a short-term gain, because they lived in the short run. So by 1980, within about five years, most of the companies reverted to government ownership. The first wave of privatization then ended in collapse. ”

    That assertion is true. The role of the plunder is important, they went from a Marxist orientated socialism to cronyism – please show me any liberal who supported Marcos or would rate him as a competent ruler as well. Either way, not much better and pretty much the same end-state, a busted arse economy with extravagantly wealthy elites who have stolen it from their citizens. But it is also true that the role of the advisers in creating the economic malaise never existed. Pinochet either ignored their policies or implemented in such a twisted and incompetent manner. Furthermore, the current success is never attributed to some of the positives left over from his mismanagement, such as the privatisation of the copper mines and private pension plans.

    So in my view:

    a. Pinochet should have acted like a soldier and handed power over to a temporary President. Instead he took over and ruled as a plundering and bloody tyrant. Like I said, he should have been hung.

    b. The reforms should have been implemented, in an honest and transparent manner.

    c. Some economic reforms take a while to have noticeable effects – even “quick” monetary policy takes 18months to make a full effect.

    d. There are many unfounded criticisms of economic rationalism based on Pinochet, even when he simply did not implement “neoliberal” (whatever the hell that really means) reforms, implemented them like a mob boss or the full effect could not be seen for years.

    e. The Chilean “economists” are wrong to criticise high growth which isn’t engendered by expansionary Government policy. The direction an economy goes at maximum output is decided by consumers i.e the citizenry. They criticise this on some specious grounds, such as Pinochet’s economic collapse and some bunk Keynesian theory.

    FDB, what shiny armour of ideology? Quips are cheap my friend.

    Mark Hill

    December 15, 2006 at 5:45 pm

  296. Indeed. Free, in fact.

    And your last shows that you are taking seriously Cosmo’s manifest superiority in Chilean political history. Sorry if you thought my quip was intended for you especially – I’ve just read a lot of out-of-hand dismissal of Cosmo from other commenters here, and hadn’t noticed that you were engaging properly. Mea culpa, carry on.

    FDB

    December 15, 2006 at 6:55 pm

  297. Cosmo, I fully accept that human rights abuses under Pinochet were wrong and bad and I do not think anyone this site has any other opinion. Although in terms of his tyrrany he is really a small fish.

    However I totally disagree with your assessment of Castro. You insist that Pinochet did a coup while Castro led a people’s revolution. This is just ridiculous. Supported by the people? Were there any elections or opinion polls perhaps which substantiate your view? You met Cubans who have mixed feelings about Castro? How about Cubans living in Florida or those desperately trying to get a US visa? And what do you think, Pinochet did not have a popular support? Could ANY leader survive without substantial popular support? And Castro was much worse than Pinochet because he sent his troops around the world, and refused to hand over power to democratic rule. Pinochet did.

    And about Allende. “He respected the constitution”. How about this? “according to his opponents, Allende’s own refusal to obey and/or enforce more than 7,000 Chilean Supreme Court and other legistlative rulings (as detailed in the Resolution of August 22, 1973) was a sign of dictatorial style in defiance of Chile’s democratic government institutions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

    At the time of the coup about 2/3 of the Congress became strongly opposed to the Allende’s authoritarian tendencies (in particular, he completely lost the support of Christian Democrats who had initially supported him). I think the coup had a significant popular support. How much? We do not know. Neither we know about Cuba. Your bias here is evident.

    It is actually funny you think life under Castro is good, the only slight problem is lack of democracy. I think you needed to go and live for a few years in the place like Cuba (or USSR where I come from) to see how good life is in the totalitarian society, as opposed to merely a dictatorship.

    And, as far as economic policies go, Chileans have told me that by and large these policies were quite successful. Yes, it is only an opinion of two people, but I do not see why I should listen to you and not the people I knew personally. Same as your Cubans BTW. As for social costs, market reforms ALWAYS are painful at first, but deliver (relative) prosperity further down the line. This is situation in places like Poland. Ever heard of Shock therapy?

    Boris

    December 15, 2006 at 9:22 pm

  298. “Give it up Cosmo.
    Your ‘facts’ won’t pierce the shiny armour of ideology.”

    What is THAT suppposed to mean dopey?

    I’m right and Cosmo is wrong. And he’s probably lying.

    “The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197. An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias.

    The balance died in the next 17 years.”

    Right now thats what I was looking for.

    And now we know. This attribution of 3000 murders to Pinochet is an OUTRAGEOUS FUCKING-LIE.

    The Marxists started the civil war. Thats clear if the above is true.

    And so we have to attribute these deaths to the marxists. Pinochet wasn’t part of a conspiracy to start a coup.

    It was his job, though he was appointed by Allende, to restore legality. The Allende regime was by then an outlaw regime.

    Now they should have stepped down like Gough Whitlam.

    It would be as if Gough Whitlam had all these goons who were trying to murder people and steal all their farms.

    So nearly all of those 3000 deaths ARE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE MARXISTS AND ITS ABOUT TIME YOU ALL STOPPED FUCKING-LYING ABOUT IT.

    FDB you arse-clown.

    Where is your “FACTS”? These facts that are having a hard time piercing my shiny ideology.

    Give me one fucking fact that contradicts what it is I say here.

    I’m only going on what is presented here.

    And what is presented here is Pinochets pre-emptive taking out of:

    3197-2796 equals 401 deaths in 17 years.

    401 DEATHS IN 17 YEARS.

    Pinochet ought to be embarrassed.

    I mean is THAT any way to run a Cold War South American dictatorship?

    That would HAVE to be the most humane country IN South America.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now stop me if I’m wrong. But is it the case that the reason that Chile is so skinny simply the historical outcome of the Andes Mountain range?

    If “Geography is Destiny” then how might Chiles peculiar geography affect the situation there?

    Well for starters a conventional force would need a good navy to take out Chile.

    And even if they did a well-prepared Chile could have all sorts of hidden materiel dumps in the mountains and well-placed mines and things.

    With enough investment that could lead the Chileans to be able to really hurt a power even after they’d managed to take the place by sea.

    Whereas in our country we too can only be occupied by a strong naval power. But once we are we are pretty screwed.

    All that flat land.

    Its not a good place for an insurgency and its too hard for third parties to supply the insurgency from the outside since we are not landlocked.

    But an insurgency within Chile would be devastating. Since the bastards would be getting outside support from the Soviets and the Cubans.

    And the marxists could retreat to the mountains and show up at their leisure to murder people which is what Marxists do.

    So there’s Pinochet. And he’s brought into this lawful removal of the usurping Marxist bastards.

    And unlike Gough Whitlam these EVIL BASTARDS start a civil war.

    And that bastard Allende seems to have been such a Marxist fanatic that he was willing to reach a cold ghoulish marxist hand right out of the grave to make sure this war happened.

    Since after all he MATYRED himself for the cause(the evil prick).

    If these illegal militias…..

    (how many non-army anti-constitutional militia-fighters can John Howard turn to after a hard day arguing with his defense minister?)………

    were prepared to start a war THAT MEANS THEY INTENDED TO WIN AND HAD THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY MIGHT WIN.

    And so the real crime of Pinochet is the 400 murders… Which is horrible but thats dictatorship for you…

    NOT 3000 MURDERS.

    The three thousand murders is a viscious leftist lie.

    Now bear in mind I haven’t researched this.

    I’m going only with the facts we have established on this forum.

    And the facts say the dictatorship murdered only a few hundred. Which is just part of the tragedy of dictatorial government.

    And its the Marxists that are responsible (as usual) for the larger-but-still-small number of deaths in the war THEY (the Marxists) started.

    The idea is to win wars SO FAST that folks don’t even think there was a war. It should be over even before its really begun.

    And in a country with Chiles geography it would be unethical in the extreme to give any sort of head-start to the criminal usurpers.

    GMB

    December 16, 2006 at 2:52 am

  299. WOW.

    George Reisman on Pinochet:

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/006032.asp#more

    Not mucking about.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 5:21 pm

  300. What a cack-handed apologia.
    George Reisman is a false friend of liberty …

    Jason Soon

    December 17, 2006 at 6:19 pm

  301. Jason:
    >What a cack-handed apologia.George Reisman is a false friend of liberty.

    I’m down with Jason on this one. I thought that piece was pure mucking about. The disclaimer was particularly embarrassing, especially given Rand’s scathing words about utilitarianism and Objectivism’s alleged moral ‘absolutism.’ Reisman’s stuff has always struck me as weasel-worded, this piece more than most.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 17, 2006 at 6:35 pm

  302. You’re full of shit Soon.

    We saw what happened as we worked through the evidence presented on this site.

    The more I worked over the details the closer I was coming to what Reismans point of view.

    Pinochet did not start the civil war.

    But he finished it almost before it was begun.

    Which is the way to handle to reality of war.

    He is responsible for a maximum of 400 killings in 17 years——- according to the facts so far presented on this forum.

    The whole Pinochet demonology appears to be another leftist myth.

    They really think they can start killing us and the ultimate crime is for the rest of us to put a stop to them quick-smart.

    That comes under the heading of wishful thinking.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 6:37 pm

  303. “I’m down with Jason on this one. I thought that piece was pure mucking about. ”

    But only because you are an idiot.

    You haven’t laid a glove on Reisman and neither has Soon.

    Just as neither of you did on me on this thread.

    I repeat.

    We worked through the details as presented on this forum.

    And we arrived pretty much where Reisman is.

    There is no getting away from that.

    Unless you have new context or new facts.

    Does anybody remember actually THINKING?

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  304. This is not Pick On Bird Week, btw.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 17, 2006 at 6:43 pm

  305. Cos that’s next week!

    Daniel Barnes

    December 17, 2006 at 6:44 pm

  306. Its always an argument-free-zone with you isn’t it Barnes?

    Change your first name to Cliff fella.

    Because in the world of reasoned argument you always have, and will forevermore play the CLIFF BARNES to my JR EWING.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 6:49 pm

  307. I always knew you were a fellow of quality and distinction, Bird.

    Ken Kercheval is one of my favourite TV actors, from one of my favourite shows. His Cliff Barnes is a work of comic genius. No higher praise could you offer…;-)

    Daniel Barnes

    December 17, 2006 at 6:54 pm

  308. I wasn’t comparing you to the ACTOR (CLIFF!!!).

    I was comparing you to the character.

    But then some simple-minded people get confused between the character and the actor.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 6:58 pm

  309. I haven’t read which side of the Pinochet fence Barnes has fallen on, but let me guess: Pincohet is worse than Hitler, Stalin and pol pot combined.

    Did I guess right?

    Let me see……

    Yep.

    Barnes, you’re about as hard to read as a red light with a cop next to it.

    JC.

    December 17, 2006 at 7:20 pm

  310. JC:
    >I haven’t read which side of the Pinochet fence Barnes has fallen on, but let me guess: Pincohet is worse than Hitler, Stalin and pol pot combined.Did I guess right? Let me see…Yep.

    JC, thanks for this nutshell demonstration of your usual method.

    1. Don’t bother to read previous thread
    2. Take a wild guess.
    3. Affirm guess as correct, regardless of still not having read previous thread.
    4. Congratulate self.

    If you do what you always do, you get what you always get.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 17, 2006 at 7:35 pm

  311. some dude at chicagoboyz summed it up well.

    lefties are mad at pinochet because he killed off the lefty intelligentsia. if only he killed off the huddled masses like any other dictator he wouldn’t have got such a brow beating.

    drscroogemcduck

    December 17, 2006 at 7:40 pm

  312. I don’t agree. Why aren’t our left enraged at Castro’s oppression of gays etc?

    Mark Hill

    December 17, 2006 at 7:44 pm

  313. We now have to start talking differently about this subject.

    1. Pinochet didn’t establish a dictatorship. Allende did. Once you are ruthlessly outside the law and the constitution thats dictatorship.

    2. Pinochet won a civil war. And we must never refer to him murdering 3000 people again. 400 is the figure for his dictatorial phase according to information presented on this thread.

    3. He re-established a democracy. Thats the short and more correct wording to use when gainsaying some dumb-leftist.

    4. He didn’t stage a coup. Thats what Allende had done. He didn’t establish a dictatorship. Allende had already done that.

    5. Imagine if we had pre-empted the plans of the Rwandans in that 90’s genocide. And that our intelligence was so good we had gone in and quickly killed all the ringleaders. Just 2500 or so of them……

    Under those conditions would we not be open to charges of being murderers?

    But in this case it was PINOCHETS country and not some foreign nation. The communists were really ruining that country and they left it long enough and it would have been derilect to leave things a minute longer.

    Why leave things? It was clear that Allende had no intention of re-establishing lawful government.

    So it fell to the newly promoted Pinochet to do what it was his duty to do.

    And 400 deaths aside he seems to have done it BETTER THEN ANYONE ELSE IN THE COMPARABLE SITUATION.

    Good on you old man. If you are right in your Catholocism your time in purgatory is probably already nearing its end.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 7:50 pm

  314. i suspect the left don’t really care about the gays and only see them as means to challenge the dominant culture that they see as preventing marxism from taking root.

    drscroogemcduck

    December 17, 2006 at 7:51 pm

  315. I just want my lefty comrades to maintain their rage when Castro pops his clogs. I don’t condemn their indignation at Pinochet, other than the glorification of Allende.

    Mark Hill

    December 17, 2006 at 7:54 pm

  316. MH
    >I don’t condemn their indignation at Pinochet, other than the glorification of Allende

    Well said.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 17, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  317. Thats what I would have said just two weeks ago.

    But its totally unsustainable now.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 8:08 pm

  318. ABL
    good point.

    Since reading about him in the this weekend’s Economist i have grown a little weary of Pinochet as they reported certain things I wasn’t aware of.

    The left’s beautification of Allende makes me sick, which is why i kneejerk from going with anything they say..

    JC.

    December 17, 2006 at 8:20 pm

  319. Amazing. I wonder if the Pinochet thread is going to enter Catallaxy folklore like the banking thread. There’s been three Pinochet/Allende posts now with combined comments well over 600.

    skepticlawyer

    December 17, 2006 at 10:17 pm

  320. BORIS SAYS:
    “However I totally disagree with your assessment of Castro. You insist that Pinochet did a coup while Castro led a people’s revolution. This is just ridiculous. Supported by the people? Were there any elections or opinion polls perhaps which substantiate your view?”

    I SAY: With due respect, do you know what a coup is? Do you know what an armed revolution is? Because it seems you need help with those definitions. Let’s see where the two started, shall we? Castro landed in Cuba with a motley force of about 80 men. In short order, Batista’s forces had pared that down to about 20 men who hid out in the Sierra Maestra range. Twenty men. Untrained. I will now quote Wikipedia: “From their encampment in the Sierra Maestra mountains, the 26th of July Movement waged a guerrilla war against the Batista government. In the cities and major towns also, resistance groups were organizing until underground groups were everywhere. The strongest was in Santiago formed by Frank País.[27][28]
    In the summer of 1955, País’s organization merged with the 26th of July Movement of Castro. As Castro’s movement gained popular support in the cities and countryside, it grew to over eight hundred men.” This is only the beginning. To say that Castro didn’t have popular support is, of course, to imply that somehow 20 bedraggled souls defeated an entire army equipped with tanks and planes, and imposed a regime on millions that may have been, by your estimation, opposed. So you see, Boris, the one being ridiculous is you. But let’s continue. Pinochet was the commander in chief of an Army that was equipped with tanks and planes, and composed of trained soldiers. They faced an unarmed population and a presidential palace guard of about 40 people, armed with light machine guns and, according to some reports I’ve looked at, a bazooka or two. They seized control of the country in one day, from an elected government. Did they have popular support? Well, they seemed to feel that it was necessary to murder and torture and detain, in order to maintain power, so you can guess that unlike Castro, Pinochet did not roll into Santiago with cheering throngs lining the streets and throwing floweres. That is a coup d’etat.

    BORIS SAY: “You met Cubans who have mixed feelings about Castro? How about Cubans living in Florida or those desperately trying to get a US visa? And what do you think, Pinochet did not have a popular support? Could ANY leader survive without substantial popular support?”

    I SAY: 3/4 of the “Cubans” living in Florida are American born and have never set foot in Cuba. Not exactly relevant. Add to these the ones who want to leave Cuba. No, I don’t think I need to talk to them. I am bombarded with their point of view constantly. So I know what they preach. As for Pinochet, he had the support of the social sector that helped instigate the coup in the first place. Trust me, they were in the minority. And Yes, a leader can survive without popular support. Pinochet did.

    BORIS SAYS: “And Castro was much worse than Pinochet because he sent his troops around the world, and refused to hand over power to democratic rule. Pinochet did.
    And about Allende. “He respected the constitution”. How about this? “according to his opponents, Allende’s own refusal to obey and/or enforce more than 7,000 Chilean Supreme Court and other legistlative rulings (as detailed in the Resolution of August 22, 1973) was a sign of dictatorial style in defiance of Chile’s democratic government institutions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende
    At the time of the coup about 2/3 of the Congress became strongly opposed to the Allende’s authoritarian tendencies (in particular, he completely lost the support of Christian Democrats who had initially supported him). I think the coup had a significant popular support. How much? We do not know. Neither we know about Cuba. Your bias here is evident.”

    I SAY: Castro sent his troops into situations in Africa in which foreign troops were already involved. This is no different than what the US does all over the world. Nobody seems to have a problem with it. You mention the August resolution by Congress. First, that document is full of half truths and unproven allagations. It is from the same people that were instigating chaos and the black market. Second, they didn’t have the needed numbers to force Allende into resigning. The Christian Democrats never “supported” Allende. They went along with the election victory because of tradition and because their program was almos t the same. But they opposed him from the outset.

    BORIS SAYS:
    “It is actually funny you think life under Castro is good, the only slight problem is lack of democracy. I think you needed to go and live for a few years in the place like Cuba (or USSR where I come from) to see how good life is in the totalitarian society, as opposed to merely a dictatorship.

    I SAY: ??? I never said life under Castro was “good”. I said I’ve never been to Cuba. I don’t know what life is like there. And neither do you. I will be happy to go to Cuba and live there, and you can pick a right wing dictatorship from anywhere in South America and go live there. Then your comparison might have some meaning.

    BORIS SAYS: “And, as far as economic policies go, Chileans have told me that by and large these policies were quite successful. Yes, it is only an opinion of two people, but I do not see why I should listen to you and not the people I knew personally. Same as your Cubans BTW.”

    I SAY: Instead of listening to the opinion of two people, or to me, you can better inform yoursef. You can get two people from the same country, and get two totally different realities told to you. It is up to you to weigh the evidence.

    BORIS SAYS:” As for social costs, market reforms ALWAYS are painful at first, but deliver (relative) prosperity further down the line. This is situation in places like Poland. Ever heard of Shock therapy?”

    I SAY: Hear of shock therapy? I lived through it. “Further down the line”? How much further? A decade? A century? At least Poland had something to begin with.

    cosmo

    December 17, 2006 at 10:54 pm

  321. “just want my lefty comrades to maintain their rage when Castro pops his clogs. ”

    well said, although we know the answer already.

    “I don’t condemn their indignation at Pinochet, other than the glorification of Allende.”

    Except for the way they single Pinochet out.

    Boris

    December 17, 2006 at 10:56 pm

  322. ” Isaid I’ve never been to Cuba. I don’t know what life is like there. And neither do you”

    Don’t be a pinhead, Cosmo Kramer. Per cap GDP is about $3500 in Cuba. It’s socialist shithole.

    JC.

    December 17, 2006 at 10:57 pm

  323. Cosmo, as usual we will agree to disagree. You seem to think popular revolutions are better then military coups. Coming from USSR and living through the fruits of “popular revolution” I do not see that one violent power grab is better than the other. In both cases it is maintaned with suppression of opposition (more in Cuba than in Chile, where moderate opposion was tolerated), widespread human rights abuses and immense sufferring of people.

    I have never been to Cuba but I have lived in USSR and know what these regimes are like.

    Boris

    December 17, 2006 at 11:11 pm

  324. How long would the combined threads have to get – 2500 comments? That’s a nice number.

    Sacha Blumen

    December 17, 2006 at 11:15 pm

  325. And Cosmo, you haven’t commented on Pinochet returning Chile to civilian rule, something Castro is not seem to be planning.

    As for popular support, yur logic about this is weak. Yesm Castro did have widespread support, but how much we do not know. Maybe 20 per cent, maybe 30, maybe 70. Who knows.

    Same with Pinochet.

    Both were affraid of democracy, so we should assume their support was not overwhelming. Although this is not certain. Some leaders are just paranoid.

    Another difference between Castro and Pinochet is that Castro restricts emigration. Castro’s Cuba is a prison. Pinochet never had problem with people’s travel.

    Boris

    December 17, 2006 at 11:18 pm

  326. I can’t understand how anyone with a brain could think that the Cuban dictatorship is worth defending – it’s truly bizarre to see posters shouting “Defend Cuba!” (ok – you only see them around uni campuses).

    Sacha Blumen

    December 17, 2006 at 11:20 pm

  327. “Cosmo, as usual we will agree to disagree. ”

    Thats weak Boris. I never say that sort of thing. And its hard to respect people who do.

    The fact is your argument is stronger then Cosmos.

    And he ought to get his act together and stop being a filthy communist who takes mass-murder so lightly.

    Cosmos views aren’t merely wrong and idiotic.

    They are disgusting and morally repugnant.

    When we think of the ideas of Cosmo we ought to think about flies crawling across the eyeballs of dead people.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 11:22 pm

  328. Yep, I can feel another banking thread coming on…

    skepticlawyer

    December 17, 2006 at 11:27 pm

  329. SL, there is a difference. Banking thread was about a technical subject where the converation, however heated, could lead to a new level of understanding of the subject by everyone (if the protagonists wanted this).

    Pinochet and Castro threads are a different matter. Everyone more or less knows the facts, and the discussion is almost exclusively ideological. No much hope of getting any new understanding out of it.

    Boris

    December 17, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  330. I’d certainly like more clarification of the facts.

    All these tortures?

    Where do these figures come from?

    Somebody said 28 000 people.

    And were they during the civil war period… That is to say the first few weeks after Pinochet ousted the communist usurpers.

    Or were they primarily during the rest of the 17 years.

    That makes a big difference.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 11:42 pm

  331. GMB #300: Your post borders on the insane. You must just be baiting me. No one can be this dense. Just in case, however, I will respond. I will just let everyone know that I don’t usually make sport of the feebleminded, but for this I will make an exception.

    GMB: “The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197. An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias.
    The balance died in the next 17 years.”
    Right now thats what I was looking for.
    And now we know. This attribution of 3000 murders to Pinochet is an OUTRAGEOUS FUCKING-LIE.
    The Marxists started the civil war. Thats clear if the above is true.
    And so we have to attribute these deaths to the marxists. Pinochet wasn’t part of a conspiracy to start a coup.
    It was his job, though he was appointed by Allende, to restore legality. The Allende regime was by then an outlaw regime.
    Now they should have stepped down like Gough Whitlam.
    It would be as if Gough Whitlam had all these goons who were trying to murder people and steal all their farms.
    So nearly all of those 3000 deaths ARE TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE MARXISTS AND ITS ABOUT TIME YOU ALL STOPPED FUCKING-LYING ABOUT IT.”

    I SAY: The little quote you are basing your entire argument on, you retard, is from an op-ed piece in the WST, a publication that has been a constant Pinochet apologist. An OPINION piece. The clueless idiot who wrote it didn’t bother to do even the most elementary research. And, of course, neither do you. I will quote from an article in the Washington Post that summarizes the findings of the Rettig and Valech reports, two things you and the idiot at the WSJ might have looked at before you reached your ridiculous conclusions based on figments of your imagination.

    WASHINGTON POST: “The Pinochet government never publicly acknowledged secret detentions. According to Chilean government reports in 1991 and 1996, a total of 2,095 extrajudicial executions and death under torture took place during the military regime, and 1,102 people disappeared at the hands of government forces and are presumed dead.”

    Please notice the absence of the term “combat deaths”. “Executions” and “death under torture”, and the “disappeared” are the terms used. So maybe you can tell me the about some battle the “Allende militias” fought against the Army, how many heroic soldiers died? When was this “civil war” declared over? When were all the “militias defeated? Please, tell us, you fucking clown.

    GMB SAYS: “Where is your “FACTS”? These facts that are having a hard time piercing my shiny ideology.
    Give me one fucking fact that contradicts what it is I say here.”

    I SAY: Look above. The Rettig and Valech reports, to start with. You’ll find plenty

    GMB SAYS: “I’m only going on what is presented here.
    And what is presented here is Pinochets pre-emptive taking out of:
    3197-2796 equals 401 deaths in 17 years.
    401 DEATHS IN 17 YEARS.
    Pinochet ought to be embarrassed.
    I mean is THAT any way to run a Cold War South American dictatorship?
    That would HAVE to be the most humane country IN South America.”

    I SAY: You are going on bullshit. Therefore, that’s what you keep typing.

    GMB SAYS: “Now stop me if I’m wrong. But is it the case that the reason that Chile is so skinny simply the historical outcome of the Andes Mountain range…BLAH BLAH … three thousand murders is a viscious leftist lie.
    Now bear in mind I haven’t researched this.
    I’m going only with the facts we have established on this forum.

    I SAY: This fantasy reads like the ramblings of a drug junkie. The only coherency is to be found in the last two lines. No, it is clear you haven’t researched anything, and since you neglected to do this before proceding to put your foot in your mouth, you haven’t “established” ANY facts on this forum.

    GMB SAYS: “And the facts say the dictatorship murdered only a few hundred. Which is just part of the tragedy of dictatorial government.
    And its the Marxists that are responsible (as usual) for the larger-but-still-small number of deaths in the war THEY (the Marxists) started.
    The idea is to win wars SO FAST that folks don’t even think there was a war. It should be over even before its really begun.
    And in a country with Chiles geography it would be unethical in the extreme to give any sort of head-start to the criminal usurpers.

    I SAY: As anyone with half a brain can see, what the facts establish is that you wouldn’t know one if it hit you in the face. The next time you and your buddy JC start talking about “facts”, you might want to know what they are first. Then maybe both of you can help the WSJ guy get a clue.

    cosmo

    December 17, 2006 at 11:44 pm

  332. You clarify the facts then you lying little ghoulish house-slave wannabe.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 11:52 pm

  333. In summary… the facts as understood by this thread point to me being right.

    Now this communist filth cosmo has said that I’m basing my point of view on bad information.

    I’m basing my views on what has been presented on this thread and this thread alone its true.

    But notice the lying little son of Joachim of Fiore (take him out the back and shoot him) says this and DOES NOT ENLIGHTEN US AS TO WHERE THESE FACTS ARE WRONG.

    This lunatic might as well be Fyodor.

    GMB

    December 17, 2006 at 11:54 pm

  334. I dunno Boris. There is quite a bit of information out there, which I’m curious about because much of it’s not been widely reported – I didn’t know that most of the killing occurred during the first flush of Pinochet’s coup, or that his government assassinated people as far away as the US (I knew about Operation Condor, but that was a separate issue).

    You’re right about people being unwilling to change their minds, though.

    And Graeme, knock off the swearing, please.

    skepticlawyer

    December 18, 2006 at 12:03 am

  335. BORIS:

    Three things. First, it is painfully obvious to me that, contrary to your assertion that everybody knows the facts, it seems that nobody knows the facts around here. That is why there is no progress. I keep having to argue with some psycho that there was some mythical “civil war” in Chile, and who seems to think that going by an opinion piece on the WSJ is “establishing facts”. Second, while you may lived in the USSR, I have lived through a violent military dictatorship. When I start commenting on the USSR and saying things you don’ think are true, feel free to let me know. Until then, I really don’t give a rat’s ass where you lived. And third, to state that my logic is “weak”, after I’ve shown you how ridiculous yours is, is a poor comeback. Show me how my logic is weak. Since I doubt Mr. Batista conducted any opinion polls to gauge Mr. Castro’s popularity during the Cuban revolution, or was planning to hold elections and see if Mr. Castro would get elected, then we have to go by the events that took place, and the popular support Castro had to have to do what he did. Castro’s 20 men, and 10% of the population supporting him is not gonna make a revolution. Ever seen film of when he entered Havana? That’s called “popular support”.

    cosmo

    December 18, 2006 at 12:15 am

  336. Cosmo you idiot.

    What facts are you disputing.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:21 am

  337. GMB:

    Where the facts are wrong? You claim there was a civil war. There wasn’t. You claim, additionally, that it was this fairy tale that accounted for all but 400 of the deaths attributed to Pinochet. I have pointed you to two government reports deal with this, the Rettig and Valech reports, which are pretty clear, if READ. Moreover, one can add the testimony of thousands of Chileans as to what took place. If you believe there was a civil war, show me the evidence.

    cosmo

    December 18, 2006 at 12:27 am

  338. There was a civil war based on what the Wall Street Journal said.

    That is to say it said that Allende had armed fighters.

    This wasn’t a situation like with Fiji where the army just comes in and ousts people from the buildings.

    This was all these people with weaponry fighting for a communist takeover.

    I got the 400 by taking away those that were killed in the civil war phase from the total.

    Which figures are you disputing.

    Try again idiot.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:31 am

  339. And based on what some people say, there are little green leprechauns that will give you their gold if you can catch them. It doesn’t mean that leprechauns exist.

    Do proper research. Opinion pieces on the WSJ don’t qualify. Neither does your fantasizing.

    cosmo

    December 18, 2006 at 12:35 am

  340. “The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197. An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias. The balance died in the next 17 years.”

    What concrete fact above are you disputing.

    Because what you see above is a description of a civil war.

    Yes there was a civil war.

    And Pinochet did his job and won quickly.

    Which is how you are supposed to win wars of any kind.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:36 am

  341. You idiot.

    Which facts are you disputing.

    By God you are a stupid stupid filthy little communist.

    Third parties.

    See how retarded communists are?

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:37 am

  342. Come on Cosmo.

    In fact you can dispute none of these facts and you have just been a filthy lying communist all this time.

    Thats right isn’t it.

    In fact you cannot even dispute just one of these facts can you?

    Here it is again:

    “The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197.

    An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias.

    The balance died in the next 17 years.”

    This is what I’m basing what I’ve said on.

    And you are unable to dispute anything above but you continue to bluster on with your attempt to mislead people.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:40 am

  343. GMB:

    I’ll spell it out for you one more time. This is the part.

    “An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias. The balance died in the next 17 years.”

    Are you kind of the village idiot around here?

    cosmo

    December 18, 2006 at 12:44 am

  344. Which of these facts are disputing you complete moron.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:45 am

  345. This idiots got nothing.

    He’s got nothing at all.

    He’s got no argument. He doesn’t have facts which differ from the ones he claims to be disputing.

    He’s just a dirty filthy lying communist.

    Communists are liars. They cheat. They lie. They are, typically by their own admission, UNHYGENIC………..

    …… and this ones a real stinker.

    (Its tough not swearing skeptic.)

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 12:48 am

  346. YOUR QUOTE: “An estimated 2,796 of those died in the first two weeks of fighting between the army and the Allende-armed militias. The balance died in the next 17 years.”

    IS DISPUTED BY TWO CHILEAN GOVERNMENT REPORTS IN 1991 AND 1996. THIS QUOTE SUMMARIZES THE DEATH TOLL FIGURES AND THEIR CAUSE:

    “The Pinochet government never publicly acknowledged secret detentions. According to Chilean government reports in 1991 and 1996, a total of 2,095 extrajudicial executions and death under torture took place during the military regime, and 1,102 people disappeared at the hands of government forces and are presumed dead.”

    CAN YOU READ, YOU FEEB? IS IT CLEAR AS MUD NOW IN WHAT PASSES FOR THAT BRAIN OF YOURS?

    cosmo

    December 18, 2006 at 12:53 am

  347. NOW GO GET A FUCKING CLUE.

    cosmo

    December 18, 2006 at 12:55 am

  348. You idiot.

    The Wall Street Journals figures are found here:

    “The official death toll of the Pinochet dictatorship is some 3,197…”

    And you have been attempting to derail the righteousness and clarity of my argument (because you are a filthy lying communist) on the basis that 3197 does not equal 2095 plus 1102?

    And even without getting my calculator out I can see that THESE ARE BOTH THE SAME FIGURES YOU MORON.

    Because 2095 plus 1102 = 3197.

    I cannot stand these lying Fyodor-types.

    OK in summary Cosmo has been lying all this time and my argument has not been assailed.

    And may I point out right here that we must congratulate young Mr Steve Edwards for being a bit ahead of he curve on this matter.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 1:08 am

  349. GMB, what is going on here? Cosmo is saying that Chilean government reports had established that around 3000 people were executed without trial. When this occurred is completely irrelevant. Unless you have suspicion that these reports are false (and they are result of investigation by commissions established by democratically elected governments).

    Given the havoc Allende caused to the economy by fixing prices while raising salaries, and the record of communists throughout the world, I can understand why many Chileans supported the overthrow of Allende. However in retrospect Pinochet’s brutality (however minimal compared to communists) probably did the cause of fighting communism more harm than good.

    Stop labelling people.

    Boris

    December 18, 2006 at 1:48 am

  350. Cosmo was trying to throw a smokescreen over everything by claiming he was disputing the Wall Street Journals figures.

    So I kept pressing him and finally he was drawn out to give up his own figures.

    But it turns out that they were exactly the same as the Wall Street Journals figures.

    So he had been bullshitting about the Wall Street Journals figures being wrong the whole time.

    “However in retrospect Pinochet’s brutality (however minimal compared to communists) probably did the cause of fighting communism more harm than good.”

    Well we don’t know about that do we?

    Because we haven’t found out any more about this alleged brutality.

    401 murders in 17 years of dictatorship is pretty good going.

    Its 401 murders.

    The rest were part of a civil war.

    That is what we should call it for the sake of accuracy.

    The fact that Pinochet won so quickly does not spill ill of him.

    He was afterall a soldier.

    And thats what a good soldier does.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 2:08 am

  351. GMB these other 2700 people may have been executed right after the coup. But they were EXECUTED without trial not killed in battle. There is no evidence of a battle nor any soldiers on the other side killed in battle.

    This is not civil war. This is political repression. And the brutality of communists elsewhere does not in any way justify these human rights abuses. Not even if there were only 400. After Stalin even Soviet leaders stopped executing political opponents (but continued to send them to jail).

    ‘“However in retrospect Pinochet’s brutality (however minimal compared to communists) probably did the cause of fighting communism more harm than good.”’

    “Well we don’t know about that do we?”

    I agree it is not clear cut. But I believe there must be a middle way, a democratic way to fight communism. Maybe I am an idealist.

    Boris

    December 18, 2006 at 2:50 am

  352. If you look at the geography of Chile I wouldn’t say that this was political repression.

    I would say it was winning the war quickly by sending the message that the communists cannot get a foothold here so don’t try it on.

    I’m not saying we would need to do that here.

    Though one doesn’t want to take any chances.

    But when you look at Chile and how vulnerable it would be to foreign-assisted insurgency I think you just come down SO FAST and win so quickly and convincingly that the war is over before its began.

    But you’ve brought up something.

    How many died in the fighting and how many died who had been rounded up and executed.

    You see you have one impression of it and I think thats my impression also.

    But do you know this?

    Do you have any figures?

    Well until you get some our working assumption ought to be that some substantial proportion of them died in battle.

    The reason we would assume this for the moment is that leftists are such outrageus liars.

    Don’t you think if there is hours of fighting.

    That if there was lets say five hours of fighting to take the Presidential Palace and a couple of weeks fighting after that that some of these guys are going to die in battle?

    Yet we never hear of people talking of them dying in battle.

    So I’ll just assume its the big fucking leftist smokescreen it appears to be unless you can tell me how many died in battle.

    There would be a middle way to fight communism in Australia and New Zealand.

    Or in Canada.

    But not in Chile in the 1970’s.

    Only 3000 is marvellous work. The old man is drinking champagne with 70 virgins in heavan as we speak.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 3:01 am

  353. I suppose the 30,000 tortured by Pinochet’s regime were tortured “in battle” too!

    Daniel Barnes

    December 18, 2006 at 4:08 am

  354. There’s lots of idiotic stuff in Reisman’s article, but the nadir is surely when he waxes righteous about prosecuting Pinochet being the equivalent of “seizure of property in violation of contract”, and how of course such prosecutors would have to be “socialist.”

    But as head of the military dictatorship Pinochet embezzled some $27m and kept it in offshore accounts. In fact, he was a property-seizing-tax-eater of the highest degree, and was facing charges for his blatant thievery as well has his human rights violations.

    Funnily enough, Reisman entirely fails to mention this fact. What a worm.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 18, 2006 at 4:48 am

  355. No there is no idiotic stuff in Reismans article. You are lying.

    “I suppose the 30,000 tortured by Pinochet’s regime were tortured “in battle” too!”

    Well WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.

    Is it all bullshit?

    Where did you hear about it?

    When were they tortured?

    How do you know its true?

    And Barnes? How many do you know were tortured in battle?

    These are the things you leftists need to find out for you to even have a case.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 11:41 am

  356. GMB:
    >How do you know its true?

    Shit, watch out. GMB has now armed himself with the Hume Nuke!

    Daniel Barnes

    December 18, 2006 at 11:47 am

  357. Cosmo, if Graeme has to knock off the swearing, so do you. I’m using someone else’s chambers right now and can’t even make my email client work or find sugar (I put salt in a cuppa tea first thing this morning – it tasted BAD) let alone blog regularly.

    Just sayin.

    skepticlawyer

    December 18, 2006 at 11:54 am

  358. No it goes like this.

    About 20 years ago I remember myself saying that Chile must have been the worst dictatorship outside the communist block.

    HOW DID I GET SO DELUDED.

    As it turns out it was just leftist lies and vindictiveness. That this man had actually defeated the evil communists.

    Even if it turns out that he was a bad man the fact that he defeated the communists is clearly a mitigating factor.

    But leftists could be expected to single him out and start bullshitting about him.

    I didn’t know that this was the case however.

    Now as it turns out he was amongst the least nasty of dictators. But we must still throw all these alleged facts into dispute.

    Where is the 28000 coming from. And when were they tortured?

    This is an important matter because without it the left don’t have a case.

    They are just being their usual lying self.

    With it they have some case but lets see how much.

    17 years of Pinochet dictatorship only caused 400 murders. Dictatorship is a nasty thing. But to single out this guy amounts to socialist-holocaust-denial.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 11:58 am

  359. Graeme,

    How do you know that cosmo, Liam etc are really singling him out?

    Mark Hill

    December 18, 2006 at 12:04 pm

  360. He created a desert and called it peace.

    Besides, he was dead last week.

    Andrew Elder

    December 18, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  361. I’m still seriously concerned now that GMB has acquired Hume Nuke technology. Previously he had strongly condemned it, and claimed he used radical epistemological uncertainty only for peaceful purposes under his “The Convergence” program.

    Now as of the comment at 3.01 am this morning, and again at 11.41 am, he’s started testing the Hume Nuke on this forum. This poses the imminent threat of threads far longer and infinitely more destructive than even the Thread of Doom Pts 1 and 2, and risks contributing to general instability in the region as neighbouring commentators abandon their previous sensible policies of critical preference in response to this new threat.

    Clearly the international community must consider its options.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 18, 2006 at 12:54 pm

  362. Well we are where we are.

    And we are not getting any further until you can come up with more information as regards to this torture business.

    There is the torture business. And there is the deaths-in-battle versus executions business.

    And we aren’t going to make Pinochet (as opposed to dictatorship itself) the focus of grave evil unless you lefties can find more information about that.

    What it looks like is you’ve maligned him fo saving his country against communism. Which is a callous and bigoted position to take given just how evil communism is.

    This focus on Pinochet then becomes a white-wash and part of leftist-holocaust-denial just like the exaggeration of the historical record that Windschuttle discovered was an indirect leftist-holocaust-denial attempt.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 2:40 pm

  363. GMB:
    >And we are not getting any further until you can come up with more information as regards to this torture business.

    Obviously there is the Valech Report.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valech_Report

    And then there is your hero’s property seizing and general theiving to the tune of $27m that that valiant defender of property rights George Reisman sees fit to omit from his account.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 18, 2006 at 4:35 pm

  364. Bird,

    Pinochet was more trouble than he was worth, just like Saddam. May the latter follow the former before this year is ended.

    Andrew Elder

    December 18, 2006 at 4:47 pm

  365. No Pinochet WASN’T just like Saddam you disgusting piece of crap.

    And he was no trouble at all. The trouble comes when the leftist lying starts.

    Saddam was a commie and a socialist and a mass-murderer whereas Pinochet was a traditional dictator more along the lines of Henry VIII.

    Or thats what we have so far. Because after all Henry could be personally vindicative. Whereas so far we just have Pinochet knocking out Chilean socialists.

    The message to Chilean socialists was keep your head down and don’t even think about causing trouble.

    Now we are where where we are in this argument.

    We cannot get further until more facts are tendered.

    So just stop this bullshit.

    Now also there is another point. South American dictatorships are not just the responsibility of South American dictators.

    Since once Reagan clipped the wings off commies world-wide look what happened to these countries?

    The all went democratic.

    It was the socialists, the illegal drugs, the currency debauch…. these things go hand in hand with the felt need for a strongman.

    You focus on the head enforcer himself you are missing the point.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Elder I went over to your site.

    And don’t be JIVING us that you are some sort of ex-libertarian. Because no ones going to believe that.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 5:19 pm

  366. “And then there is your hero’s property seizing and general theiving to the tune of $27m that that valiant defender of property rights George Reisman sees fit to omit from his account.”

    But its not relevant to his account.

    27 million is minimal legal and sanctuary money for a dictator. And it just shows his restraint in this matter.

    Tell us the figures on every other dictator you can find if you doubt that for one second.

    And don’t be fucking lying that this guy is anyones hero faggot.

    We are having a debate here and you are losing.

    Its not about peoples pin-up boys or anything like that.

    We are setting the historical record straight. And we find further confirmation of the holocaust-denial bigotry and rank dishonesty of the left.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 5:25 pm

  367. “And then there is your hero’s property seizing and general theiving to the tune of $27m that that valiant defender of property rights George Reisman sees fit to omit from his account.”

    But its not relevant to his account.
    27 million is minimal legal and sanctuary money for a dictator.

    And it just shows his restraint in this matter.

    Tell us the figures on every other dictator you can find if you doubt that for one second.

    And don’t be lying that this guy is anyones hero.

    We are having a debate here and you are losing.

    Its not about peoples pin-up boys or anything like that.

    We are setting the historical record straight.

    And we find further confirmation of the holocaust-denial bigotry and rank dishonesty of the left.

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 5:27 pm

  368. GMB:
    >And don’t be lying that this guy is anyones hero…its not about peoples pin-up boys or anything like that…

    GMB earlier:
    >Only 3000 is marvellous work. The old man is drinking champagne with 70 virgins in heavan as we speak.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 18, 2006 at 6:12 pm

  369. Right.

    So I just want to re-emphasise that don’t you be lying and calling this guy anyones hero.

    We are trying to set the record straight since it appears that leftist filth have done the leftist thing and lied to the children we have to look at this problem from all angles.

    Aren’t you fucking embarrassed by association Barnes.

    I mean is there not anything the left hasn’t lied about?

    GMB

    December 18, 2006 at 8:05 pm

  370. GMB:
    >Aren’t you fucking embarrassed by association Barnes.

    Err…with who?

    Daniel Barnes

    December 19, 2006 at 4:13 am

  371. With dumb-leftwingers lying about stuff.

    I get it. Enough time has passed for you to figure you could get away with pulling a bite-sized quote out and try some trick or other.

    Why not show up with some evidence for a change fella.

    Find the evidence and you won’t need to do this dance.

    GMB

    December 19, 2006 at 5:21 am

  372. GMB:
    >Why not show up with some evidence for a change fella.

    See 365.

    And unless you’ve got better contrary evidence, you keep that Hume Nuke shelved, fella.

    Daniel Barnes

    December 19, 2006 at 5:51 am

  373. No I’m not going on this wild goose-chase.

    You have to come up with evidence.

    So far we’ve seen that had Pinochet been an ethical genius he likely would have had to do things not too different from what he did do.

    HE HAD TO SAVE HIS COUNTRY FROM AND ATTEMPTED COMMUNIST/FASCIST TAKEOVER…… (you idiot)

    Now that was never going to be easy or bloodless.

    We have precedent for many such attempted utopian-socialist dictatorial take-overs.

    We have Hitler, the Bolshevics, Pol Pot, the North Vietnamese and so forth.

    And they aren’t pretty.

    So the idea was to win that war and win it quickly. Sending the message out that no head-starts or even-breaks will be given.

    Now you do understand that right?

    And aren’t such a moron as to think communism is ok……… right?

    The starting point is understanding that a communist take-over is the ultimate evil on this world. Nothing is worse then that. And no chances can be taken with the possibility.

    Not winning wars quickly is the pretty much worst thing a Commander-In-Chief can do.

    In that a failure to win wars (particularly against communist filth) quickly will leave millions dead.

    GMB

    December 19, 2006 at 6:08 am

  374. GMB:
    >You have to come up with evidence.

    What do you call the Valech Report?

    Daniel Barnes

    December 19, 2006 at 6:11 am

  375. You lying idiot Barnes.

    There was nothing in 365 at all.

    Moron.

    GMB

    December 19, 2006 at 6:11 am

  376. GMB:
    >You lying idiot Barnes.There was nothing in 365 at all. Moron.

    You’re saying the Valech report is entirely false?

    Daniel Barnes

    December 19, 2006 at 6:14 am

  377. No not at all.

    But we don’t use the Wiki for controversial matters. Only for technical matters. And the Wiki didn’t give an English translation of the report.

    But it doesn’t look real good. It looks like once that practise of torture starts it becomes habitual.

    You appeared to be emphasising this $27 million embezzlement business.

    The minimum amount for a dictator I would have thought.

    You are going to be going around in circles unless you can come up with some more evidence.

    GMB

    December 19, 2006 at 6:34 am

  378. Why do you need more ‘evidence’?

    You’re not debating the amount. All you’re doing is suggesting he was justified in stealing whatever he did steal, on the basis that he’s a dictator and that’s what dictators do.

    Your defense of Pinochet boils down to the fact that he stole, tortured, and murdered less than some other dictators. For this “marvellous work”, apparently, you think he deserves to be “drinking champagne with 70 virgins in heaven as we speak.”

    Frankly, this is as weak a stretch as it gets.
    Judging by your remarks about whether I’m “embarrased” to be saying the same thing about Pinochet as some leftwingers, it seems like you’re more worried about your image than anything else. You’d rather bend over backwards to polish up a turd like Pinochet than be seen agreeing with left-wingers, even when they’re right about something for once. You seem to think it’s all about who you’re seen with, as opposed to who’s right and wrong. Mate – aren’t you a bit old to be worried about being one of the Kool Kids?

    Daniel Barnes

    December 19, 2006 at 9:58 am

  379. No its such a minimal crime in the scheme of things that it brings into question your own ethical judgement.

    And now since you’ve misrepresented what I said about it I’ll have to repeat:

    “27 million is minimal legal and sanctuary money for a dictator. And it just shows his restraint in this matter.”

    You got that?

    Its not what you said I said is it Barnes!

    If you are a dictator who intends to bring his country back to democracy you are obviously going to need legal and or sanctuary money as back-up.

    Its more then clear that he showed retraint in this matter.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    We need a better picture of it because so far the alleged torturing doesn’t really ring true.

    They are saying there was so many people tortured. Yet only 401 killed. We would want to know what sparked the arrests. And who was arrested and why.

    We would want some sort of understanding of the attempts of the communists to unravel things there.

    Because in the wiki they are talking about a few incidents where some thousands were arrested in a single hit.

    Which seems all pretty strange.

    The normal thing for a dictator of that period when he has some sort of trouble. He just goes and murders maybe 40 000 people.

    Like the King of Jordans dad on Black September.

    So this report as told by the wiki seems very strange.

    Thousands arrested, allegedly tortured. But only 400 killed in 17 years.

    Like no other dictatorship on earth when you think about it.

    How hateful people are to compare him to Castro or any of the other socialists.

    And there is Keating sitting at the feet of the REAL butcher Suharto. Calling him ‘uncle’ and he the democratically elected leader of this Continent.

    And later there he is objecting to us intervening in East Timor. When thousands were bing cut to pieces by militia over one or two days.

    400 dead in 17 years shows something else going on and not anything like the normal socialist dictator was into.

    But I don’t expect anyone who gets hung up on 27 million dollars to really have a well enough developed ethical sense to see that.

    GMB

    December 19, 2006 at 10:40 am

  380. Look, you don’t need to try so hard to justify him, I’m sure the Kool Kids will still talk to you…;-)

    Daniel Barnes

    December 19, 2006 at 12:32 pm

  381. Well we aren’t trying to pretend here that he was such a genius, such a saint, that he could unleash the forces of dictatorship and mass-torture…….

    …That he could do so at first rightly in order to save his country from communism…..

    ….That he could unleash this sort of thing in such a way as to make LIBERTARIANISM obsolete….

    …That he could do so in such a way as to make governmental violence and dictatorial rule… SURGICAL and not still the giant bulldozer that it will always be.

    To win this war and stop any inroads from the communists until the Cold War had ended there was always going to be some killing.

    To have run a government that only killed people who needed killing would have been beyond the abilities of anyone in history most likely.

    How many aborigines died in custody during the 80’s?

    And to what extent can we sheet this off to the Prime ministers that were in charge then?

    Was it 100?

    Well already thats one quarter of Pinochets total over 17 years.

    You show up at a caucus meeting and at Press conferences, you speak in Parliament………

    But how much power do you have really?

    You get guys who have to be harsh on militants… But how do you stop that from corrupting the system itself and leading them to being harsh on people who its not really necessary for them to be harsh to?

    Allende started something here. With anti-constitutionalism. Rampant anti-legal behaviour. Fascist militias, farm and business stealing…. and worst of all as far as generating violence is concerned…..HYPER-INFLATION.

    And the communists start this civil war which undoubtedly would have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths had they won or not been defeated quickly.

    And they had already ruined that country to a grave degree.

    Does anyone really think that a saviour is going to drop from the sky and fix that scenario without unleashing his own dirty business?

    Particularly not with such an active Soviet/Cuban/Marxist presence in South America.

    Pinochets about the best we could hope for.

    Barnes. Do you think you could have done better?

    If you think you could have done better I suggest you misunderstand the bulldozer nature of government.

    We see that when the marxists are defeated it does not take much to end the dictatorships.

    Therefore even the 400 deaths and the late-term-tortures are more THEIR fault then anyone elses.

    GMB

    December 19, 2006 at 1:02 pm

  382. Pinochets about the best we could hope for.

    I love the we.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13090&R=EF219D0F

    Andrew Elder

    December 20, 2006 at 11:05 am

  383. Whats your point Elder?

    GMB

    December 20, 2006 at 1:07 pm

  384. “He created a desert and called it peace.
    Besides, he was dead last week.”

    No Elder. You are lying. And you are an idiot. No retract this lie.

    GMB

    December 20, 2006 at 1:10 pm

  385. Come on Elder.

    What was the point of the link?

    And what was the point of the lie?

    And lets see you retract that lie.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    This is left-wingers for you. They lie all the time. And they are idiots.

    Go over to Elders site and he is even pretending to be a reformed libertarian.

    To think that he would even lie about THAT.

    GMB

    December 20, 2006 at 1:16 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: