PDA

View Full Version : Pinochet Dead


OneWorld22
10th Dec 2006, 18:07
Slyly dodged justice while still alive but he will rot in hell for the thousands murdered at his whim.

Good riddance.

con-pilot
10th Dec 2006, 18:18
100% agreement with on this OW22.:ok:

(Haven't seen you around here lately, everything okay?)

OneWorld22
10th Dec 2006, 18:19
Hey con,

Everything AOK, just been busy, PPRuNe seems to be a little quiet for my liking nowadays as well!

one dot right
10th Dec 2006, 18:36
At least he was open about it, unlike Bush and B'liar!

con-pilot
10th Dec 2006, 18:39
Glad to hear it OW, yup not the place it use to be. However, it only took 4 post for someone to get a Bush/Blair bash in, so it's not all bad. :p

tony draper
10th Dec 2006, 18:45
Yup, another one dodges the hangman.

pigboat
10th Dec 2006, 18:47
C'mon Fidel, yer on deck.

one dot right
10th Dec 2006, 19:25
[QUOTE][/Glad to hear it OW, yup not the place it use to be. However, it only took 4 post for someone to get a Bush/Blair bash in, so it's not all bad.
Today 19:36
QUOTE]

O.K, Fine, Tone and George are innocent, let's look further afield, let's say,er, oh I don't know, yeah, Russia. Putin. What a fine upstander.:mad:

Tricky Woo
10th Dec 2006, 19:28
Awwww, and he was such a sweet old man.

TW

Ozzy
10th Dec 2006, 19:29
Glad to see the back of him.

Ozzy

Whirlygig
10th Dec 2006, 20:20
Pinochet Dead

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. :rolleyes: :hmm:

Cheers

Whirls

Foss
10th Dec 2006, 20:41
My heart goes out to the friends and family.


Of all the people he killed.
Fos

mini
10th Dec 2006, 23:44
I believe Maggot Thatcher has offered her sympathies to his family etc.

May he rot in hell etc.

GrumpyOldFart
11th Dec 2006, 02:03
Good.

Next?

tony draper
11th Dec 2006, 11:07
Watched a item on the general last night someone said that we should not forget he had plenty fans among Chileans,especialy the middle classes they throve under him, and credit him with saving the nation from Castro style communism.
:cool:
One mans villain and all that.

panda-k-bear
11th Dec 2006, 12:50
td's right - he kept Marxism out of Chile. Better the devil you know, perhaps? Would they have been better off under a Marxist regime?

Binoculars
11th Dec 2006, 13:57
Yes indeed, panda. I believe the phrase is "better dead than red".

Unfortunately the person who had Jack Palance in Death Lotto ran off with the $932, so the Pinochet man only gets $90. (btw, he who is holding Castro is dirty, and I can't blame him. Clearly been dead for a few months now, just like those Soviet PM's back in the 80's.)

We'll all miss old Augusto. Great statesman.

XXTSGR
11th Dec 2006, 16:35
Oh yes indeed - far better to have a murdering dictator who keeps the middle classes happy than to keep a democratically-elected president like Allende. I mean, after all, what would the neighbours say? I mean, it's not like people are disappearing in their thousands in our neighbourhood, is it?

El Grifo
11th Dec 2006, 18:38
Heh - - A Pprune first - - A whole bunch of posts and almost everyone in agreement.

Big question is, when it was obvious to all that the man was a murdering bloody dictator, how come he was admired and befriended by no less than the Mad Thatch herself :sad:

tony draper
11th Dec 2006, 18:47
Well twer the old thing,The enemy of my enemy is my friend. or words to that effect:cool:

El Grifo
11th Dec 2006, 19:39
Can't be "ALL" bad, but according to the opinion of most here up until now -


BAD ENOUGH :{

G-CPTN
11th Dec 2006, 19:46
The good die young.

bigfatsweatysock
12th Dec 2006, 08:37
It never fails to amaze me.

a man who kicks Marxist ass can't be all bad

You mean someone who topples a democratically elected government, has at least 3,000 people murdered, builds concentration camps for torturing suspected political oppononents, steals at least $26 millon and transfers it to Swiss bank accounts and regards Hitler as a role model?

Come to think on it Hitler was good to his mum, so he wasn't all bad eh? :ugh:

Pinochet is up there in the evil bastards league with Pol Pot Ferdinand Marcos, General Suharto, Anastasio Somoza and Saddam, all of whom have a common thread in their rise to power. Can you guess what it is? :rolleyes:

panda-k-bear
12th Dec 2006, 09:26
No, sorry sweatysock, I won't have that. No way does anyone post war measure up to Pol Pot. Not by a long bl00dy stretch....

At least not that we've found out about anyway - you never know what the Chinese and the North Koreans have been up to.

But Pol Pot has a whole league of his own.

El Grifo
12th Dec 2006, 09:33
So Panda, If sweatsock took Pol Pot out of the equation, then how would you feel.

Would you feel that his assertion was any more accurate.

bigfatsweatysock
12th Dec 2006, 09:35
Panda,

fair comment, I suppose 1.5 million dead is a bit special in the evil bastard league. He may be in the number one spot but the rest of the list is still an impressive array of evil and death.

Pinochet may be rank amateur beside Pol Pot but he still remains an unpleasant wart on the bum of humanity which death has finally lanced.

PPRuNe Towers
12th Dec 2006, 09:50
Oh do try to keep up BFFS. It was $28 mil stashed in predominantly US bank accounts.

Amortised over a 16 year dictatorship that's barely chairman of a privatised utility money. You just don't understand paying the going rate to attract talent do you?

Rob

El Grifo
12th Dec 2006, 09:50
Sorry for jumping in there sweaty.

It never ceases to amaze me that on this strange little planet of our, no matter how evil, obnoxious an tyranical a person is, there is always a group of apprently normal, balanced, civilised human beings that jump to his or her defence.

Is it simply a case of selective perception :ugh:

bigfatsweatysock
12th Dec 2006, 10:01
Dear Towers,

While $28 million is but pocket change to blood thirsty dicators, and could never come close to the "bonus payments" that certain African dictators have managed in the past, it still represents more than I won in this week's lottery.

However, if you could provide me with a pliable military force and small country I would be willing to take control of said country and share the spoils with you.

I already have a list of those that will be first against the wall.

Best regards,
BFSS.

El Grifo
12th Dec 2006, 10:10
Fidel may require replacing sooner than we think, That could be one option sweaty.

Nice beaches, good rum and pliant chicas are the attractions that immediately spring to mind.

Sources in Cuba insist that the Old Guy snuffed it 3 months ago and right now the "Authorities" are busy with a restructuring process, prior to notifying the rest of the world :sad:

panda-k-bear
12th Dec 2006, 12:29
El Grifo, Yes, I'd feel it was more accurate.

Pol Pot was quite frankly waaay out there in the lead in the nastiness stakes. Perhaps you feel that I love Pinochet because I asked what the alternative was and if that alternative was worse.

No I don't love him. No I don't idolise him. No I don't respect him.

But the question remains unanswered. Was the alternative, a Marxist regime, potentially worse?

Just remind us which idolotry Pol Pot was following....

And as for Maggie T supporting him. Well I don't think less of her for it - if he supported her in the Falklands conflict what do you expect of her? She, quite literally, owes him one. Don't you think? Much as we don't like it, that's life. If someoine offers help (or cheap goods, come to that), even if you don't like them, do you turn it down?

Do you own anything made in China? Or do you boycott all Chinese products because you don't like the regime?

Loki
12th Dec 2006, 12:40
panda-k-bear

Well we`ll never really know whether the alternative would have been worse, though one suspects so. The trouble is that the electorate in Chile which voted for Allende never got to find out, never got to regret it or reap the rewards if any. Numbers of them certainly regretted Pinochet, of that we can be sure.

The man was a murderous thug.....small beer compared to that loony Pol Pot and others, but still a murderer.

Choxolate
12th Dec 2006, 12:41
Pol Pot was a mere beginner - look at Joseph Stalin - estimates are:-
Executions 1.5 million, Gulag 5 million, Deportations 1.7 million (died out of 7.5 million deported), and POW's and German civilians 1 million, for a total of about 9 million victims of repression. Wikipedia.

Oh and don't forget Mao TseTung - cetainly many millions were "purged" - estimates as high as 47million.

bigfatsweatysock
12th Dec 2006, 12:55
But the question remains unanswered. Was the alternative, a Marxist regime, potentially worse?

Maybe you should direct that question the friends and families of the 3,000 confirmed dead, the 1,000+ "disappeared" and the 30,000 who were taken to concentration camps and tortured.

Pinochet only supported the UK in the war against Argentina because he had recently been on the verge of war with the Argies himself, over ownership of the Picton, Lennox and Nueva islands.

Pinochet was also responsible for sanctioning the assination of people opposed to his regime in other countries, car bombs in Washington DC and threats to a US Congressman. A search on google for Operation Condor will show what sort of lengths many of the South American juntas were willing to go to to rid themselves of opponents.

One of the things to remember though is that many of the names on the Evil Bastard List were supported either overtly or covertly by the CIA.

obgraham
12th Dec 2006, 16:01
Well, I find it interesting that our resident group of lefties can argue over which one of the right wing dictators was worse, but, with the exception of Choxy, fail to acknowledge that their own list of dictators by far exceed the right in their ability to eliminate their own countrymen.
Stalin, Mao, Fidel, Ho, the Kims, Ullrich, Tito, Ceausescu are at the top of a long list.
Any of them ever "elected"?

XXTSGR
12th Dec 2006, 16:32
Not that I can recall, no.

Nor were any of them ever assisted into power, ousting the democratically-elected President, by a country whose most trumpeted rallying call is that of "democracy", as was Pinochet.

El Grifo
12th Dec 2006, 17:57
Its always nice to be included in the labelling process here on Pprune obgraham (assuming of course that I am one of the "lefties" of which you speak) It gives one a sense of belonging.

It may be worth pointing out however, that not being a "righty" does not automatically give one free membership of the "lefty" club.

Some of us here could be more correctly described as "middleys"

Meaning that, instead of falling victim to the whims and dogma of the polarised groups, we are free to think for ourselves and express opinions which well from our own personal inner conscience.

Try it some time, you might like it :ok:

BenThere
12th Dec 2006, 18:42
I think it's pertinent that Pinochet's legacy, objections to his means being not without merit, is Latin America's most functioning democracy, with a thriving economy and a robust, pluralistic political culture.

Allende was killing people, too, before the coup, and was usurping constitutional power much in the same way Chavez does today.

Pinochet voluntarily ceded power and allowed the democracy that replaced him.

Castro, who has killed more people by magnitudes in a similarly sized country, will leave a less appealing mark.

El Grifo
12th Dec 2006, 18:50
Whilst no apologist for Fidel Castro, I have spent significant time in Cuba as an accredited photo-journalist and heard very little anecdotal evidence of your claim.

I was totally unrestricted in my access to people and places. You would have thought this would have been brought up.

I would be interested for sure to hear of sources.

BenThere
12th Dec 2006, 19:20
Read the summary of this Human Rights Watch (non-partisan) assessment, which might explain why no complaints were forthcoming from your Cuban contacts.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/cuba/Cuba996-01.htm#P351_12385N

South Florida Cuban exiles, with an agenda, granted, regularly claim political executions in the tens of thousands. The true facts are not disclosed by the Castro regime.

The conundrum for me is how the same people will revile Pinochet, yet raise a glass to Fidel. (Not in any way directed at you, El Grifo, and I respect your views and sincerity.)

West Coast
12th Dec 2006, 19:56
Of course the answer lies not in a direct comparison by those you speak of but rather the background noise. Read: the US and A

But you already knew that.

El Grifo
12th Dec 2006, 19:59
My main concern was with the statement :-

Castro, who has killed more people by magnitudes in a similarly sized country, will leave a less appealing mark

I also must add that the main thrust of my discussions with Cubans from various elements of society were always, always political. Far from being restricted, they were eager to enter into dialogue of this nature.

As I say I was given carte-blanch to talk with and photograph (almost said shoot) anyone I pleased.

I think it is a country one has to visit and get to know before passing seriously valid judgement. I for one, believe that the country and its political leaders in this day and age are much misaligned by forces that would prefer them to fail and suffer.

obgraham
12th Dec 2006, 21:22
Its always nice to be included in the labelling process here on Pprune obgraham (assuming of course that I am one of the "lefties" of which you speak) It gives one a sense of belonging.Feel free to be included in any group into which you might fit. In this case, however, I am only seeking balance.
Fair and balanced, I always say!

barit1
14th Dec 2006, 02:01
While no one herepresent is likely to support Pinochet's "humane" treatment of political rivals, it is important to note he brought free market prosperity to Chile, overhauled its social security system, and made Chile the most prosperous country in Latin America as a result.

One cannot overestimate such a benefit; That alone probably saves many thousands of Chilean lives a year.

The real question - could such a result be achieved more humanely? We may never know.

But the proof of the pudding is in a strange measurement: Does Chile has an illegal immigration problem? Totalitarian regimes do not; their problem is illegal emigration!

XXTSGR
14th Dec 2006, 08:36
barit, Hitler made Germany fairly prosperous (if you weren't homosexual, gipsy or Jewish) before and during the war (granted the obvious restrictions of a war economy). Mostly he did it by stealing it all.

So what? Given that the ends never justify the means, what is the point to your post?

bigfatsweatysock
14th Dec 2006, 08:55
The conundrum for me is how the same people will revile Pinochet, yet raise a glass to Fidel.

It is a curious attitude that by finding the murder kidnap and torture that was part and parcel of Pinochets Chile repulsive and morally bankrupt, somehow in your mind equates to support for Castro :confused:

From many of the other posts by various people on this thread I get very strongly the impression that Free Market economies should be created by any means possible including the creation of concentration camps and wide scale torture.

Considering that the US president of the time, Nixon, had ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him," The Chliean economy didn't stand a chance and did nothing more than add to the growing crisis in the country.

Documents that were recently released under a FOI enquiry include the following:

Cables written by U.S. Ambassador Edward Korry after Allende's election, detailing conversations with President Eduardo Frei on how to block the president-elect from being inaugurated. The cables contain detailed descriptions and opinions on the various political forces in Chile, including the Chilean military, the Christian Democrat Party, and the U.S. business community.

CIA memoranda and reports on "Project FUBELT"--the codename for covert operations to promote a military coup and undermine Allende's government. The documents, including minutes of meetings between Henry Kissinger and CIA officials, CIA cables to its Santiago station, and summaries of covert action in 1970, provide a clear paper trail to the decisions and operations against Allende's government

National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to "destabilize" Chile economically, and isolate Allende's government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.

State Department and NSC memoranda and cables after the coup, providing evidence of human rights atrocities under the new military regime led by General Pinochet.

FBI documents on Operation Condor--the state-sponsored terrorism of the Chilean secret police, DINA. The documents, including summaries of prison letters written by DINA agent Michael Townley, provide evidence on the carbombing assassination of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington D.C., and the murder of Chilean General Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires, among other operations.

These documents, and many thousands of other CIA, NSC, and Defense Department records that are still classified secret, remain relevant to ongoing human rights investigations in Chile, Spain and other countries, and unresolved acts of international terrorism conducted by the Chilean secret police.

ORAC
14th Dec 2006, 09:43
"There is this external aggressor," Pinochet said on Jan. 2, 1988, "who for the sake of revenge or disinformation seeks to come to the aid of those who are hawking their country away for millions of dollars. Our people, I am sure, totally reject this interference, which is unacceptable."

What was Pinochet referring to? An announcement that Congress had approved National Endowment for Democracy funding of several million dollars to promote a peaceful transition to democracy in Chile.

The point is not to deny US aided anti-Allende forces in Chile, and many may have opposed him for sound democratic reasons. Nor their support for Pinochet's 1973 coup, but rather to note that that US support can, and does change, as, most often, do any despotic regimes they supported as public opinion turns against them.

Which is more than can be said for president for life Castro. I note that the news from Venezuela that there is now a proposal to amend the constitution so Chavez can be continuously elected.

Still, that´s better than North Korea where Kim Il Sung, the "Great Leader" is officially designated in the constitution as the country's "Eternal President", even though he´s been dead for 12 years.... :hmm:

barit1
14th Dec 2006, 11:58
barit, Hitler made Germany fairly prosperous (if you weren't homosexual, gipsy or Jewish) before and during the war (granted the obvious restrictions of a war economy). Mostly he did it by stealing it all.

So what? Given that the ends never justify the means, what is the point to your post?

XXTSGR: Given that in retrospect people must live with the outcome of a regime, and not merely its intentions, what is your point?

barit1
14th Dec 2006, 12:07
It is a curious attitude that by finding the murder kidnap and torture that was part and parcel of Pinochets Chile repulsive and morally bankrupt, somehow in your mind equates to support for Castro :confused:
From many of the other posts by various people on this thread I get very strongly the impression that Free Market economies should be created by any means possible including the creation of concentration camps and wide scale torture...

It is a curious attitude that merely because a populist (Allende) is democratically elected, all is good and right with the world. What do Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat have in common? they were both democratically elected, brought great economic distress to their countries, and both won the Nobel Peace Prize. Grand intentions must never be equated with good outcomes.

Curious Pax
14th Dec 2006, 12:40
But did he make the trains run on time? Always seems to be the mark of a successful dictator.

I think we should be told........

bigfatsweatysock
14th Dec 2006, 12:51
Barit1,

I am not sure if I follow you here. Are you saying that a US inspired and backed military coup which led to thousands of murders and torture is acceptable?

Is it your position therefore that democracy is only a Good Thing if it meets your requirements?

Are you going to support that ludicrous statement that GWB made that "Democracy doesnt mean you just vote for anyone you want" ?

Democracy doesn't mean you get better leaders. It just means you get leaders who at least half the population doesn't hate.

barit1
14th Dec 2006, 13:09
No one here claims the end justifies the means.

But it seems quite acceptable in this forum to forgive the outcome, so long as the intentions are - umm - honorable...even if the outcome, the unintended consequence, is poverty, disease, and short lifespans.

The way to achieve both good intentions AND good outcomes is, I will submit, a universal education (with practical examples) in ECON 101, instead of a universal indoctrination in Marxism. I daresay many Chileans will testify to which they prefer today.

boogie-nicey
14th Dec 2006, 13:33
Pinochet might not have been a hero of mine but at least the guy had the guts to stand up against the scourge of Marxism in the South America. The 'reds' once established would with the support of Moscow have started to extend their tenticles into the rest of South America and would have caused serious problems throughout the region. Chile today would have been a barely know Mountain rooftop of a nation 'somewhere amongst the Andes' and that's all.

Pinochet not only kicked the 'reds' in the balls but saved South America from what it really didn't need at the time, namely communism. The destablising effects on Brazil and Argentina would have been somewhat pronouced in Geo-politcal terms. These so called detainees who were tortured are no different from the medieval torture chambers of Algeria or the repression caused by French forces in Morocco, or the Red brigade in Italy during the 60s/70s who posed a big menace to the country, the plethora of torture units in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the extreme brutality of the Dutch in Indonesia, TO NAME but a few. So don't try and focus all your left-wing claptrap onto one man as if he was a blip on the landscape of humanity. He was no saint but unfortunately he had to fight fire with fire.

Chile proved to be a willing ally of British forces during the Falklands war, allowing numerous SAS operations to be conducted from it's soil which had a more than a small influence on the outcome. The world is far from a nice place there's obviously alot of suffering going on but from time to time you have stand up and 'take them on' or loose it all. I read somewhere quite recently the obseravtions of some military diarist, "the opposition always come prepared and ready to fight", in such circumstances you have little choice but to fight whether dirty or not, but then again which conflict is ever clean? Had those 'reds' (yes I said 'those') ever got a foothold they would have ruled with the usual abrasive, cold and unsymphathetic iron fist they used back in the USSR. I feel their affect would have been far more dire for any reasonably educated, affluent, or pro-business persons in Chile at the time. The outcome could have become 3,000 tortured under Pinochet to 300,000 sent to jails and death chambers by the reds. Perhaps one should consider for a moment that Pinochet was the lesser of two evils, maybe.... The people rounded up by Pinochet's forces were judged to be a threat, they weren't just picked up for a laugh or bored security forces.

Like I said he's no hero of mine but a necessary instrument in the fight against the USSR during those very cold war years. Back then realism and practicality reined supreme over the giddy matron culture we have today.

There are far more evil beasts out there in the world TODAY that we need to deal with before we get down to the archived list of years gone by.

XXTSGR
14th Dec 2006, 13:56
The message I'm getting from several posters here is the anyone is OK, deposing democratically-elected leaders is OK, killing, torturing, maiming and "disappearing" thousands upon thousands of people is OK, squirrelling away an illegally-amassed personal fortune is OK, provided you are against communism, even if the majority of the electorate voted for it...

In other words, democracy is fine provided you vote for the right people. Vote for anyone else and we'll be down on you like a ton of bricks.

boogie-nicey
14th Dec 2006, 14:28
XXTSGR: My friend though my post came across as that intentionally, it has to be emphasised that in an ideal world I would love to restrain from such activities but this is policing on the global stage. If we don't do anything we'll be overrun, that's all I was saying, I doubt Pinochet took the decision to take on the Marxist government of Chile lightly but when he did it was after serious communication with the US and perhaps even NATO at the time.

Look at the more local parallels of policing in our towns and cities, with all the softly, softly approaches we have a criminal element that is out of hand. I'm not advocating some regime style policing but more practically induced policing whether that ranges from the bobby on the beat, CPS or legal framework. The menace has to be confronted.

XXTSGR
14th Dec 2006, 15:23
Marxism is not crime. You may not agree with it - you may even disagree with every fibre of your being. But last time I checked, voting for a Marxist goverment was not a crime.

Salvador Allende was not a Marxist. He was a socialist. That is not a crime either. Yet he paid with his life for it.

And to see you being so f:mad:ing sanctimonious about it fair makes my blood boil. You keep on claiming that the end justifies the means.

Get this - Pinochet was an evil, greedy fascist dictator who killed, imprisoned and tortured anyone who crossed his path merely to remain in power. You think he was motivated by totally altruistic motives? Bo||ocks.

And he most certainly did take on the government after discussion with the USA. They are implicit in all his crimes, in all his murders. And if you think they were limited to 3,000 you're more of a fool than your posts so far have implied.

barit1
14th Dec 2006, 15:45
Since the thread is titled "Pinochet Dead" we should perhaps stick to that.

But in reviewing his life let us learn from not only the bad (which was very bad), but also the less-obvious good. To do any less is dishonest.

XXTSGR
14th Dec 2006, 16:24
The good is so much less than obvious that, to be quite honest, it is totally invisible to me.

Sorry, but I don't see anything good, honourable, laudable, anything to be grateful for whatsoever in illegally deposing a democratically-elected President and replacing him with your favourite puppet, funding him, arming him and letting him to whatever he likes to anyone to remain in power.

So he replaced a socialist. So what? If you think that's good then it only depends on how dangerous you really think socialism is. If you think it was worth what many, many thousands of innocents paid, then you are as morally bankrupt as you appear and as hypcritical as those in the USA who applauded and supported Pinochet and were so keen to remove Saddam Hussein in the name of "democracy".

barit1
14th Dec 2006, 16:30
The good is so much less than obvious that, to be quite honest, it is totally invisible to me...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

ORAC
14th Dec 2006, 16:45
Nothing good at all?

Brain Juice: (http://www.brain-juice.com/cgi-bin/show_bio.cgi?p_id=96)....Indeed, terror in Chile was complemented not just by order but also by an economic miracle that has lasted despite a few bouts of inflation. At the beginning of his tenure, Pinochet gave free reign to a group of economists called the Chicago boys, nicknamed because of their devotion to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman's free-market theories. Although their practices increased the income disparity ratio in Chile, the Chicago boys achieved an annual economic growth rate of seven percent, a figure three times the overall Latin American average. By offering generous incentives to foreign investors and privatizing business, Pinochet's government transformed Chile into a modern land of plenty and boosted life expectancy, salaries, access to health services, and educational standards above those of any other Latin American country. Even today, conservatives around the world herald Pinochet's economic ends and ignore his means.

Pinochet is so controversial, and weighing his achievements against his atrocities proves so difficult, that nearly a third of his countrymen still revere him as a nationalist icon. So sure of their support, Pinochet called a plebiscite for the 1988 presidential election -- and lost.

And even stranger, the dictator respected the vote and stepped down from the presidency......

ORAC
14th Dec 2006, 16:59
So he replaced a socialist. So what? If you think that's good then it only depends on how dangerous you really think socialism is. Interesting what you find, Allende wasnot just a socialist, but a KGB Agent, confirmed from the KGB's own files.....

The Mitrokhin Archive II - The KGB and the World (http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000630.php)

boogie-nicey
15th Dec 2006, 09:17
Well said ORAC.

I don't doubt the atrocities but as you say the 'benefits' are so convientently overlooked.

Curious Pax
15th Dec 2006, 09:47
I think the point for many who believe in democracy is that the benefits have to be many orders of magnitude greater than the downside. I don't think that Pinochet managed that. Remember that you will never know if the Chilean socialist/communist/Marxist experiment would have either worked out in the end, or been voted out at the next election, rendering a coup unnecessary.

Also remember that whilst Chile may have been chaotic under Allende, a significant part of that could be placed at the doors of foreign powers manipulating things for their own ends.

Put a UK slant on it. In the mid 70s the economy wasn't in the best shape, and many will place the blame at the doors of the Labour government of the time, and feel that a more right wing government could have sorted things out. With rightwing links to Washington they could have convinced the US that Healey and Callaghan were Communist stooges, and should be destabilised using any means necessary. As the UK situation then deteriorated further as a result then a military coup would have been staged to remove Labour, and place someone more right wing in power. There is some evidence that at least part of this scenario was planned (although I'm dubious that it was ever anything more than a few crackpots, and had no chance of success). Would that have been acceptable?

XXTSGR
15th Dec 2006, 09:54
boogie - do I take it that you approve of Adolf Hitler?

BenThere
15th Dec 2006, 10:11
I might infer that you do, XX, as he was democratically elected and a socialist of sorts.

Choxolate
15th Dec 2006, 10:12
boogie - do I take it that you approve of Adolf Hitler?
XXTSGR - do you approve of the (originally) democratically elected Robert Mugabe??
Nobody is all good or all bad, easy to demonise those that you politically detest (I do it ;) all the time) - Adolf Hitler controlled an inhuman system that carried out unspeakable acts but he was not the Antichrist, even though it is convenient to portray him as such.

ORAC
15th Dec 2006, 10:24
Remember that you will never know if the Chilean socialist/communist/Marxist experiment would have either worked out in the end, or been voted out at the next election, rendering a coup unnecessary.
Seeing as Allende was a KGB agent and the circumstances before the coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973), it is by no means certain there would have been another election...

XXTSGR
15th Dec 2006, 11:00
Ben There - no, I do not approve of Hitler, even though he was democratically elected originally. However, he sacrificed any legality he might have had as soon as he dispensed with tiresome details such as democracy and appointed himself a dictator. The fact that he then continued by some of the most unspeakable acts ever seen in history add further to the evil total of the man. If you think he was a socialist, you need to do a little reading. He was a fascist. Two totally different economic models and political ideologies. But then you've probably been confused by the name of the party, so that's understandable if someone doesn't want to bother their brain too much.

Some of the most fatuous comments about Mussolini have now been elevated to legendary status by their sheer fatuousness - "At least he made the trains run on time", as if they somehow mitigate the negative side.

Choxolate - no, I do not approve of Robert Mugabe. His original election might have been on a fair vote (I don't know and am not qualified to judge) but, like Hitler, he has since lost all legitimacy he might once have had.

What both of you appear to have missed is why I have been harping on about democracy in this thread. Democracy, you might have realised, is that much-vaunted concept that this US Administration has been trumpeting as their raison d'être in Iraq. The hypocrisy is staggering. In the Chile of Montalva, the USA invested staggeringly large sums in opposing Allende. Despite that, he was elected in a process which was judged free and fair. This was largely due to the incompetence of the CIA in backing the wrong horse over the kidnapping by CIA-funded operatives of the Chief of the Army. This turned the army in Allende's favour. They also made several attempts on his life prior to his election.

His election infuriated Nixon, who wanted him out at any cost. The CIA funded the opposition to Allende, they funded fomenting of all the unrest they could manage and brought as much legal and illegal economic pressure they could bring to bear on Chile, sabotaging the economy with every weapon at their disposal. They also bought the loyalty of many senior generals, Pinochet being one of them.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Allende's policies, the fact remains that he was democratically elected, and the USA removed him by force simply because they didn't like his policies. They further assisted Pinochet and supported him in power, funded him and assisted him despite (or perhaps because of) knowing what he was doing to all opposition in the country because the approved of his political stance.

It is not that I am seeking to beatify Allende here. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the CIA and the US Administration under Nixon when compared with how valiantly they appear to defend democracy now.

I make no pretence of my belief that democracy has many, many flaws - not least that it elects politicians :yuk: instead of statesmen. I woud love to see the back of democracy if only I could think of a sensible alternative. Democracy does, at least, have the benefit of electing someone who is given the illusion of popular acclaim.

But the general theme throughout recent history and to date is that, according to the USA "You can vote for anyone you like provided we like them. Elect anyone else and you're outta here."

Pinochet was a vile, evil dictator. Saying that he didn't kill as many people as Pol Pot or Stalin or Genghis Khan is an idiocy. Numbers don't matter. They're merely the scores they get to post in their own little corner of Hades as soon as they get there. Saying that he gave lots of economic prosperity to the middle classes and the industrialists in Chile is a stupid irrelevancy since it was stolen money - stolen from the American taxpayer so the US could maintain him in power and stolen from the corpses Pinochet robbed. It's not "one of his good points". It's merely the whitewash on the sepulchre over the victims' graves - of which there were many.

Curious Pax
15th Dec 2006, 11:19
Seeing as Allende was a KGB agent and the circumstances before the coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_coup_of_1973), it is by no means certain there would have been another election...

Indeed, but do you not think that one of the tenets of a democracy is that the benefit of the doubt is given until the time of the next election has past?

ORAC
15th Dec 2006, 11:37
Indeed, but do you not think that one of the tenets of a democracy is that the benefit of the doubt is given until the time of the next election has past? If one of things being done in the meantime is to remove the democratic institutions which make a fair election possible, in an unconstitutional manner - no.

The trouble is to by the time the next due date comes round, it will probably be too late.

XXTSGR
15th Dec 2006, 11:41
And where is the evidence that Allende was doing that? And do you think that Pinochet did not do precisely what you baselessly accuse Allende of?

ORAC
15th Dec 2006, 11:57
And where is the evidence that Allende was doing that? And do you think that Pinochet did not do precisely what you baselessly accuse Allende of? Read the text of my link above:

On August 22, 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies passed, by 81 to 47 votes, a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", which called upon the military to "put an immediate end" to what they described as "breach[es of] the Constitution… with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that the Allende government was seeking "...to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system," and claimed that it had made "violations of the Constitution" into "a permanent system of conduct." Many of the charges came down to disregarding the separation of powers and arrogating the prerogatives of both the legislature and judiciary within the executive.

Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:

Ruling by decree, thus thwarting the normal system of adopting legislation

Refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its own partisans and "not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives"

Ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office

Various offenses related to the media, including usurping control of the National Television Network and "applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government..."

Allowing its supporters to assemble even when armed, while preventing legal assembly by its opponents
"...supporting more than 1,500 illegal 'takings' of farms..."

Illegal repression of the El Teniente strike

Illegally limiting emigration

The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."

As the text says, Although this call for "redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence" was invoked to justify the September 11 coup, that does not mean that the request of the Chamber of Deputies was not in itself justified.........

cavortingcheetah
15th Dec 2006, 12:04
:hmm:

Mrs Thatcher was rather well disposed towards Mr Pinochet.
That rather makes him a damn fine fellow. :D

XXTSGR
15th Dec 2006, 12:30
Orac, if you read a in a little more depth, you will find that it is generally acknowledged, even by the CIA, that the "evidence" against Allende was a fabrication. But then, perhaps you already found that and decided against mentioning it...?

panda-k-bear
15th Dec 2006, 13:03
XX - can you not debate without insulting your opponent?

For my money it's a bit like being asked to choose between Hitler or Stalin. Both nasty.

I don't agree with Pinochet slaughtering people. Trouble is that "re-education" doesn't seem to work either, does it?

If Allende had been in power - use your imagination here for a minute - and he'd slaughtered 3,000, or 30,000 or 300,000, would that have been OK cos he's a socialist?

Let's face it, Allende was a nice chap - His university thesis was entitled "Mental hygiene and crime", advocating eugenics such as decribing homosexuals as repugnant, advocating chemical castration for people with mental illnesses, and condemning the Jews as usurers, swindlers and slanderers. He could have gone on to great things, couldn't he? This rhetoric sounds more like a certain German dictator, no?

boogie-nicey
15th Dec 2006, 15:55
Someone earlier mentioned that no one is entirely good or bad and BTW no I don't necessarily approve of Hilter.

Sorry if I caused you offence XXSGTR it wasn't intentional.

El Grifo
15th Dec 2006, 17:50
Mrs Thatcher was rather well disposed towards Mr Pinochet.
That rather makes him a damn fine fellow.

I was thinking more of the other way round acshully :ok:

Al Fakhem
16th Dec 2006, 11:43
td's right - he kept Marxism out of Chile. Better the devil you know, perhaps? Would they have been better off under a Marxist regime?

Well, here's a clue: Fidel Castro executed some 15,000 people when he took over power in Cuba. But then, as we all know, only right-wing governments can do wrong, so we'll see all the bleeding f:mad: g hearts at this idiot's funeral.

And without Pinochet, it is doubtful that Britain could ever have successfully defended The Falklands.

El Grifo
16th Dec 2006, 11:54
Well, here's a clue: Fidel Castro executed some 15,000 people when he took over power in Cuba. But then, as we all know, only right-wing governments can do wrong, so we'll see all the bleeding f g hearts at this idiot's funeral.


I keep hearing this kind of stuff, but no one appears able to provide an unbiased source.

It would really help me if you could point me towards one.

Cheers
El G.

Chimbu chuckles
16th Dec 2006, 13:57
Anyone wanna take a stab at guessing who has been responsible for the deaths of more innocent people, mostly women and small children, since 1972 than all the badies mentioned in this thread combined?

And by quite a large margin.:ugh:

XXTSGR
16th Dec 2006, 14:34
Chimbu - probably the NHS. :E

El Grifo
16th Dec 2006, 14:43
Drunk Drivers :\

Chimbu chuckles
16th Dec 2006, 15:00
Nope...the environmentalist movement and the EPA.

3 million+/annum for the last 35 yrs since they banned DDT...for no good reason.

Mostly based on a book, Silent Spring, written in 1962 by a women called Carlson...the ackowledged 'mother' of the environmental movement....one of those books in the same genre as the peak oil and GW books written in the more recent past.

Best part of 100 million people by WHO estimates..sorta puts a few 20th century despots into perspective.

Rachel Carson, a biologist and writer who worked for many years for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is widely credited with catalyzing the modern environmental movement. Silent Spring was the first popular book to call attention to the dangers of indiscriminate introduction of pesticides and other chemicals into the environment. Carson's principal target was DDT (if you really want to impress the ladies, Craig, tell them it stands for dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), a cheap and effective insecticide first employed on a large scale during World War II to control typhus and malaria. After the war DDT was widely used in the United States in agriculture and in mosquito abatement programs.

Part of what made DDT appealing was its broad spectrum--it can kill not just one or two but hundreds of insect species (not to mention various other types of wildlife, especially fish, if you aren't careful about overspraying or runoff into streams). Carson took this fact and ran with it, rhetorically speaking--she claimed that DDT and other pesticides would destroy all living things, and that they should properly be termed "biocides." In the chapter from which Silent Spring takes its title, she paints an apocalyptic picture of an environment bereft of life due to chemical pollution, in which "no birds sing." Among other things, the book claims that DDT interferes with bird reproduction and causes cancer in humans; after its publication the chemical was linked to the thinning of eggshells in some avian species. The Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970, in no small part due to Silent Spring, and two years later DDT became the first chemical it banned. Most other industrialized nations followed suit, and pressured third world countries to do the same.

Many of Carson's claims were overblown. While DDT is highly toxic to insects and fish and can poison other animals in large enough doses, in moderate amounts it's not especially harmful to birds and mammals, including humans. (Ironically, the EPA's own judge agreed, but was overruled by its chief administrator.) No one has conclusively proved that DDT can give you cancer. The cause of eggshell thinning is likewise poorly understood.

On the other hand, DDT is demonstrably effective at controlling the mosquitoes and other insects that transmit malaria and typhus. Thanks principally to DDT, in the years after World War II malaria was eradicated in the U.S. and sharply curtailed in many tropical countries. Venezuela recorded eight million cases of malaria in 1943; by 1958 that number was down to eight hundred. The World Health Organization estimates that DDT saved 50 to 100 million lives during this period, and that's just counting malaria prevention. In recent years, however, the disease has staged a comeback. Globally it quadrupled during the 1990s, and it's even reappeared sporadically in the United States. The resurgence of malaria is due to a variety of factors, including changes in land use and possibly climate, and some experts say the phasing out of DDT is one of them.

I don't mean to suggest that DDT is benign. On the contrary, it's a potent contact toxin, and though it breaks down quickly in sunlight, it's much more persistent in soil and water and accumulates in plants and fatty animal tissues with long-term exposure. But its drawbacks have to be weighed against its benefits. Malaria currently infects 300 to 500 million people annually, mostly in Africa, and causes as many as 2.7 million deaths. Alternative methods of mosquito control cost more and are less effective. Some 400 scientists and doctors have signed a petition opposing the inclusion of DDT among the 12 persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to be banned under a United Nations treaty now up for ratification, and a few public health experts are campaigning to bring DDT back. DDT isn't a panacea; India, which still uses it, suffered nasty outbreaks of malaria in the 90s, and insects in many parts of that country have become resistant to the chemical. But it remains an important tool, and in a time of rising global pestilence we shun it at our peril.

I am just curious how people can get so worked up about Pinochet ordering the deaths of 3000 people, who may or may not have been completely innocent...and yet 100 million deaths caused by the politics of greed and ignored science never makes the news.:confused:

And the above is a VERY gentle critique of Carlson...another scientist calls her an outright liar...and to prove his point ate a large quantity of DDT every morning in front of his science students...for over a year...the man is now in his 80s and healthy.

ORAC
16th Dec 2006, 15:12
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba)Political persecution
Various estimates have been made to ascertain the number of politcal executions carried out on behalf of the Cuban Government in Cuba since the revolution. Latin American historian Thomas E Skidmore, assessed that there had been 550 executions in the first six months of 1959.[11] British historian Hugh Thomas, in his extensive study Cuba or the pursuit of freedom[12] alleged that "perhaps" 5,000 executions had taken place by 1970,[11] whilst The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators assertained that there had been 2,113 political executions between the years of 1958-67.[11]

Cuban American sources place the number of executions in a far higher bracket. The Cuban American National Foundation assess that since the revolution 12,000 political executions have taken place.[11] Dr. Armando Lago, of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, a group of academics whose board of directors is almost entirely comprised of Cuban exiles, [13] claim that between 15,000 and 18,000 Cubans were executed for counterrevolutionary activities since the revolution. He also asserts that 250 Cubans disappeared during the period, 500 died in prison for lack of medical attention, 500 were murdered in prison by guards and there were 150 extrajudicial assassinations of women. Lago calculated these numbers "using old news accounts, U.S. and Organization of American States records and family histories."[14] Lago's study relies heavily on records of the US State Department and the Organization of American States.

The author of the Historical Atlas, a online personal compilation of various sources summarizes his findings as follows: "The dividing line between those who have an axe to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range."[11]

The highest estimates are given by R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He gives the number of 73,000 as the mid-point estimate of victims of the alleged democide by the Castro administration. His low and high estimates are 35,000 and 141,000 respectively. One important reason his numbers are higher than those from other sources is because he counts the estimated deaths of refugees trying to flee and for example drowning as democide.[1]




Reference XXTSGR's last point point that: you will find that it is generally acknowledged, even by the CIA, that the "evidence" against Allende was a fabrication. But then, perhaps you already found that and decided against mentioning it...?

Look at the list of charges/allegations by the Cjhilean Supreme Court and Chamber of Deputies, how many could, credibily, be fabiricated by the CIA?

So, we have a man who, from their own records, is a KGB agent; who is accused by the their own courts and parliament of breaking the constitution, and it's all a CIA plot? Pardon my incredulity.

If the CIA had not tried to stop the KGB inspired take over of Chile they would have been remiss in their duties. The fact that Pinochet then became a dictator rather than handing power back cannot be condoned. But pardon me if I am rather glad that Allende was deposed - and I think that a lot more than 3000 lives were saved in doing so, and that Chile is a far better place for it...

pigboat
16th Dec 2006, 15:38
Pinochet ran in an election after he stepped down as El Supremo, did he not? I seem to recall he got 46% or some such percentage of the votes cast but still lost. On a per capita basis, as many people have been tortured and murdered in Northern Ireland as in Chile under Pinochet, but Gerry Adams seems to be doing well for himself.

barit1
16th Dec 2006, 18:04
Nope...the environmentalist movement and the EPA.

3 million+/annum for the last 35 yrs since they banned DDT...for no good reason.

Mostly based on a book, Silent Spring, written in 1962 by a women called Carlson...the ackowledged 'mother' of the environmental movement....one of those books in the same genre as the peak oil and GW books written in the more recent past.

Best part of 100 million people by WHO estimates..sorta puts a few 20th century despots into perspective...

In the same league as Rachel Carlson is Paul Erlich (http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7111.htm). His wildly inaccurate predictions matter not to the practitioners of their Greenie religion; the (ahem) population bomb went the way of Global Cooling. :rolleyes:

cavortingcheetah
16th Dec 2006, 18:23
:hmm:

Without the banning of DDT, one wonders what would have been the real increase in global population in the poorest areas over the last thirty five years given the likely presumption that those who have died because of the ban would have bred like mosquitoes?:confused:

Al Fakhem
27th Dec 2006, 05:19
I keep hearing this kind of stuff, but no one appears able to provide an unbiased source.

It would really help me if you could point me towards one.



Try The Black Book of Communism, originally a French book, but available in English from the Harvard University Press.

El Grifo
27th Dec 2006, 08:57
Well, here's a clue: Fidel Castro executed some 15,000 people when he took over power in Cuba. But then, as we all know, only right-wing governments can do wrong, so we'll see all the bleeding f g hearts at this idiot's funeral.

Try The Black Book of Communism, originally a French book, but available in English from the Harvard University Press

Not so easy to source such stuff where I live.

15,000 seems a hell of a lot of people to kill without screeds of information being freely available or stuffed down ones throats in fact.
Can you point me to any sources which are more freely accessable.

Spanish doctors now saying he is still alive and does not have cancer !

Al Fakhem
28th Dec 2006, 01:59
Not so easy to source such stuff where I live.

15,000 seems a hell of a lot of people to kill without screeds of information being freely available or stuffed down ones throats in fact.



Try www.amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com) - they deliver worldwide.

You might wish to be reminded that it took quite a long time for people to realize the literally dozens of millions of people killed by their own caring, socialist/communist leaders such as Mao and Stalin.

El Grifo
28th Dec 2006, 07:59
I am not sure that I want to go to the effort of ordering a book from Amazon in order to help prove your assertion.

Like I said previously. I am sure this figure of 15,000 would have surfaced prior to now, especialy considering the vicious hatred of all things Cuban from their mighty neigbours accross the waters.

Have another scratch around and see if you can come up with something a bit more accessable.

Have you spent much time in Cuba ?


Cheers
El g.

Airbus Jockey
29th Dec 2006, 10:30
I love it, usual suspects siding with Pinochet...
Anyone opposed to Socialism is OK eh fellahs??:rolleyes: The Shah was a top bloke as well of course....

F**k him, he's dead now anyway.

BenThere
29th Dec 2006, 11:28
Adopting your tactic of putting words in people's mouths, may I assume you feel Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were 'top blokes', too?

Would Allende, if allowed to create a socialist utopia in Chile, have joined the above honor roll you so esteem?

They're all dead now as well. But you can still celebrate Castro, Chavez, Kim and other 'dear leaders' busily doing so much for welfare of their people.

barit1
29th Dec 2006, 13:44
...a socialist utopia ...
Marvelous irony! ROFL! :}

Airbus Jockey
29th Dec 2006, 13:47
Adopting your tactic of putting words in people's mouths, may I assume you feel Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot were 'top blokes', too?

Dear oh dear, 0/10 for effort there mate!!

Al Fakhem
30th Dec 2006, 02:38
I am not sure that I want to go to the effort of ordering a book from Amazon in order to help prove your assertion.

Like I said previously. I am sure this figure of 15,000 would have surfaced prior to now, especialy considering the vicious hatred of all things Cuban from their mighty neigbours accross the waters.

Have another scratch around and see if you can come up with something a bit more accessable.

Have you spent much time in Cuba ?


Cheers
El g.

Have I become your research outsource partner?:ugh:

barit1
30th Dec 2006, 19:12
Another informative book: Death by Government (RJ Rummel) :eek:

See: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

caos
31st Dec 2006, 15:58
Chile is a country where the ideologies are distributed in the famous three thirds, that is to say right, center and left.
Allende was elected president with only 36.6% and then supported by the center in the voting of the congress (due to a secret pact between center and left) he was elected president, therefore never he had most of the population.

What we lived in Chile was exclusive, not comparable to any other country.
Pinochet was not the ideologist of the military blow, but he was the main actor.
The year 1973 this country was a chaos and didn't have direction, Allende didn't even know what to make (he named military ministers). The illegal internment of weapons for paramilitary groups of left was a fact and with training of Cuban mainly.

Nobody can guess if it was worse the military blow or a civil war.
Pinochet made excesses but he also ordered the country and projected internationally (until today stays the economic and social outline implanted in his government).
The CIA supported him privately, as well as to its secret police's development.

In the Operation Condor the CIA was involved, as well as in the traffic of drugs (a separated business).
The support to Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands is the product of a long relationship among the Chilean Navy and the English Navy very previous to his government (the Chilean Navy is based on the English Navy) and to the restriction of USA of selling armament to Chile.

I think ORAC and barit1 are well focused.

El Grifo
10th Jan 2007, 08:50
Have I become your research outsource partner?

Thankfully not dear Fakhem !

A research outsource partner who made radical claims such as yours with only a tenuous link to the validity of such claims, would not last long on my watch. :ok:

Happy New Year

Al Fakhem
10th Jan 2007, 08:56
Grifo:

Are your sources perhaps less tenuous? If we dismiss everything we do not like as "biased", we can obviously live a very happy life without facts getting into the way.

Happy New Year - please remember to renew your subscription to Gramma.

El Grifo
10th Jan 2007, 09:43
This is now heading down the silly path.

I make no assertions therefore I have no sources.

You tell us that Fidel Castro executed 15,000 people when he took power in Cuba.

In all of my dealings with Cuba, I have never heard this said. I am simply asking you for a valid and accessable source of this information

With the political, climate btween the aforementioned and the US in mind, I would have expected this information to be found 90 feet high, blazing in neon all over the net.

Surely you are not expecting me to simply take your word for it are you ?

Capt.KAOS
10th Jan 2007, 09:50
I might infer that you do, XX, as he was democratically elected and a socialist of sorts.This persistant myth is hard to eradicate. Hitler never had more than "only" 37% of the votes and even lost 34 of the 230 seats in the 1932 elections. It was a backroom deal with von Papen as a revenge for von Papen's replacement by Schleicher as Chancellor.

Capt.KAOS
10th Jan 2007, 10:03
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/chile05-01.jpg

More here... (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm)

Al Fakhem
10th Jan 2007, 10:51
I agree, Grifo, more so because an earlier poster has already listed some other sources - all of them, no doubt, not suitably disposed towards communist dictators for your liking.

But to help you digest if not the figure of 15,000 victims of Castro rule but the underlying thinking of Fidel Castro, you might want to consider that even the US Socialist Worker Party (now please, they must be acceptable to you as a trusted source) at the time denounced Castro's opposition to the arrest of Pinochet in 1998 and possible extradition. Two peas in a pod, one is tempted to say, except for the fact that Pinochet left behind a functioning democracy with a flourishing economy (for South American standards, anyway), whereas Castro leaves behind a soup kitchen.

El Grifo
21st Jan 2007, 15:57
Had dinner with a learned, aging, expatriot Cuban last night, who has very mixed views on Fidel.

He told me with no doubts whatsover, that he has never even heard of this "15000 murdered by Fidel" story. He said it is quite plainly fiction.

He said that in his lifetime, Fidel may possibly have jailed at one time or another that number of people, but to say he murdered that number when he took power is plain crazy.

Recheck your sources and then check your sources source and I am quite sure you will find you have been fooled.

I never ever had a subscription to Gramma (sic) but I have occasionally scanned through the pages of Granma whilst sipping an excellent Cuban coffee on the terrace of Hotel Inglaterra on Prada in Havana :ok: