View Full Version : Has McCain already met a Dictator without preconditions?
Desperado
10-24-2008, 12:04 PM
Hypocricy much? He's made such a huge deal about meeting Admangasdgejad, Pinochet may go down as one of the worst dictators in history.
McCain's Private Visit With Chilean Dictator Pinochet Revealed For First Time (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-dinges/mccain-meets-a-bloody-dic_b_137422.html)
John McCain, who has harshly criticized the idea of sitting down with dictators without pre-conditions, appears to have done just that. In 1985, McCain traveled to Chile for a friendly meeting with Chile's military ruler, General Augusto Pinochet, one of the world's most notorious violators of human rights credited with killing more than 3,000 civilians and jailing tens of thousands of others.
The private meeting between McCain and dictator Pinochet has gone previously un-reported anywhere.
According to a declassified U.S. Embassy cable secured by The Huffington Post (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Pinochetmeeting.pdf), McCain described the meeting with Pinochet "as friendly and at times warm, but noted that Pinochet does seem obsessed with the threat of communism." McCain, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, made no public or private statements critical of the dictatorship, nor did he meet with members of the democratic opposition in Chile, as far as could be determined from a thorough check of U.S. and Chilean newspaper records and interviews with top opposition leaders.
At the time of the meeting, in the late afternoon of December 30, the U.S. Justice Department was seeking the extradition of two close Pinochet associates for an act of terrorism in Washington DC, the 1976 assassination of former ambassador to the U.S. and former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. The car bombing on Sheridan Circle in the U.S. capital was widely described at the time as the most egregious act of international terrorism perpetrated on U.S. soil by a foreign power.
At the time of McCain's meeting with Pinochet, Chile's democratic opposition was desperately seeking support from democratic leaders around the world in an attempt to pressure Pinochet to allow a return to democracy and force a peaceful end to the dictatorship, already in its 12th year. Other U.S. congressional leaders who visited Chile made public statements against the dictatorship and in support of a return to democracy, at times becoming the target of violent pro-Pinochet demonstrations.
Senator Edward Kennedy arrived only 12 days after McCain in a highly public show of support for democracy. Demonstrators pelted his entourage with eggs and blocked the road from the airport, so that the Senator had to be transported by helicopter to the city, where he met with Catholic church and human rights leaders and large groups of opposition activists.
Mark Schneider, a foreign policy aide and former State Department human rights official who organized Kennedy's trip, said he had no idea McCain had been there only days before. "It would be very surprising and disappointing if Senator McCain went to Chile to meet with a dictator and did not forcefully demand a return to democracy and then to publicly call for a return to democracy," Schneider said.
McCain's visit with Pinochet took place at a moment when the Chilean strongman held virtually unrestricted dictatorial power and those involved in public, democratic opposition were exposed to great risk.
McCain's presence in Chile was apparently kept as quiet as possible. He and his wife Cindy arrived December 27 and traveled immediately to the scenic Puyehue area of southern Chile to spend several days as the guest of a prominent Pinochet backer, Marco Cariola, who later was elected senator for the conservative UDI party.
The trip was arranged by Chile's ambassador to the United States, Hernan Felipe Errazuriz. According to a contemporary government document obtained from Chile, Errazuriz arranged for a special government liaison to help McCain while in Chile for the "strictly private" visit, and described him as "one of the conservative congressmen who is closest to our embassy."
Errazuriz also arranged the invitation for the McCains to stay at the farm of his wealthy friend, Marco Cariola, according to Cariola, who did not know McCain previously. The McCains spent the three and a half days fishing for salmon and trout and riding horses. The area is one of Chile's most beautiful tourist attractions, with dozens of crystal clear lakes and rivers surrounded by luxurious estates such as the Cariola farm where the McCains were staying.
On December 30, McCain traveled back to Santiago for a 5 pm meeting with dictator Pinochet, followed by a meeting with Admiral Jose Toribio Merino, a member of the country's ruling military junta.
McCain's meeting with Pinochet in 1985 are described in a U.S. embassy cable, based on McCain's debriefing with embassy officials:
"Most of his 30-minute meeting with the president, at which foreign minister [Jaime] Del Valle and a ministry staff member were present, was spent in discussing the dangers of communism, a subject about which the president seems obsessed. The President described Chile's recent history in the fight against communism and displayed considerable pride in the fact that the communist menace had been defeated in Chile. The President stressed that Chile had stood alone in this battle, and complained that United States Foreign Policy had left them stranded. The congressman added that talking to Pinochet was somewhat similar to talking with the head of the John Birch Society."
Other than to describe the warmth of the encounter, the cable does not contain any account of what McCain said to Pinochet. There is no indication that the subject of human rights or return to democracy was raised with Pinochet. At this time in history, Pinochet was overtly ostracized by most world democratic leaders because of his refusal to move toward a restoration of democratic, civilian rule.
A second declassified U.S. diplomatic cable refers to a letter from then-U.S. Ambassador Harry Barnes giving further detail of McCain's meeting with Pinochet (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BDPoindexterletter.pdf).
From his meeting with junta member Merino, however, McCain passed on an tidbit of political intelligence that the embassy found useful. "The most interesting part of the conversation, according to the congressman, was Merino's statement that he and other members of the Junta had recently told Pinochet that he should not expect any support from the junta if he should decide to be a candidate for president in 1989."
In fact, three years later Pinochet was defeated in a plebiscite in which he was the only candidate, and free elections a year later restored democratic government. A healthy list of U.S. congressmen traveled to Chile in support of the transition to democracy, including Republican Senator Richard Lugar. McCain, by then a first term senator, did not return to Chile.
In addition to the Chilean document and the U.S. cable cited above, at least four other declassified documents refer to McCain's meeting with Pinochet and his interest in Chile.
McCain campaign press office said no one was available to comment on the story.
Former ambassador Errazuriz, reached by phone, said repeatedly "it is not true" that McCain met with Pinochet, that he would have known about it if it had, and that the state Department cable was possibly a fabrication.
On September 11, 1973, Army General Pinochet led a bloody coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende. The four-man military junta that seized power bombed the presidential palace, padlocked the congress, outlawed all political activity and actively persecuted its opponents. Pinochet remained in power until 1990 and in 2006 he was charged with 36 counts of kidnapping, 23 counts of torture and one count of murder. He was spared a trial for health reasons and died at age 91 in December 2006.
McCain said that lower level meeting are fine. His complaint is that the POTUS should not be meeting with rogue dictators because it gives them credibility.
Say what you will about Pinochet, the free trade policies that he began left Chile with a much higher standard of living than the rest of the continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Compare Pinochet to what Castro has done to Cuba. There is a clear difference.
Da Raider
10-24-2008, 12:54 PM
who gives a shit? The man owns 7 houses. 7!!
hatepoppy
10-24-2008, 12:56 PM
who gives a shit? The man owns 7 houses. 7!!
fuck's that got to do w the price of manboy-ass in bangkok?
fuldstændigamok
10-24-2008, 01:02 PM
Compare Pinochet to what Castro has done to Cuba. There is a clear difference.
You are so obtuse, it's almost unhuman.
Archangel
10-24-2008, 01:04 PM
Compare Pinochet to what Castro has done to Cuba. There is a clear difference.
Absolutely. One guy let US interests go on raping his country, and the other had the fucking audacity not to. As for mass murder, who gives a shit about smelly brown people anyway, right?
Also, since when is Ahmedinejad, jackass though he may be, a "rogue dictator"? Last I checked, he was elected by the people of Iran in an election that was at least as fair as the one you people had in 2000...
It's funny when people are so besotten by ideology that spin becomes a natural reaction, and they lose all capacity to recognise hypocrisy.
Absolutely. One guy let US interests go on raping his country, and the other had the fucking audacity not to. As for mass murder, who gives a shit about smelly brown people anyway, right?
Also, since when is Ahmedinejad, jackass though he may be, a "rogue dictator"? Last I checked, he was elected by the people of Iran in an election that was at least as fair as the one you people had in 2000...
It's funny when people are so besotten by ideology that spin becomes a natural reaction, and they lose all capacity to recognise hypocrisy.
I was wrong to throw rogue dictator in. How about President of a rogue nation. Does that work?
RE: Pinochet, it is all relative. Given the choice between Pinochet or Castro, I would pick Pinochet because there was some economic positives. Given the choice between Pinochet and any free society, I would choose the free society.
Archangel
10-24-2008, 01:13 PM
So Hitler was better than Castro because he was far better for the German economy than Fidel was for Cuba's?
machwa
10-24-2008, 01:53 PM
God damnit! Why do people whine so much about meeting with dictators? We aren't a bunch of fucking schoolkids on a playground refusing to play kickball because so-and-so took my pencil. This ignorant shit has to stop. If Obama or McCain or Bush met with any leader it doesn't do shit except help the situation. I actually think it's a good thing to meet with someone if it could help and possibly avoid military conflict. Any US leader/rep/senator who is against meeting a dictator is a pussy. End of story.
Archetype
10-24-2008, 01:56 PM
God damnit! Why do people whine so much about meeting with dictators? We aren't a bunch of fucking schoolkids on a playground refusing to play kickball because so-and-so took my pencil. This ignorant shit has to stop. If Obama or McCain or Bush met with any leader it doesn't do shit except help the situation. I actually think it's a good thing to meet with someone if it could help and possibly avoid military conflict. Any US leader/rep/senator who is against meeting a dictator is a pussy. End of story.
You're kinda dumb.
No way, Debo being hypocritical?
John Edwards talks about the common man but gets an expensive haircut to look presidential: Somewhat reasonable story
Sarah Palin talks about the common man but gets an expensive wardrobe to look presidential: Completely rediculous liberal media story
Lets try it in this thread.
machwa
10-24-2008, 02:03 PM
You're kinda dumb.
Ummm, ok.
Archetype
10-24-2008, 02:15 PM
Victory is mine!
vasili denisov
10-24-2008, 02:31 PM
Say what you will about Pinochet, the free trade policies that he began left Chile with a much higher standard of living than the rest of the continent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Stalin did a pretty good job industrializing a backward rural nation. Too bad there were a few million fewer living in it after.
Archangel
10-24-2008, 05:44 PM
That's what Dick Nixon said about Mao...
Da Raider
10-24-2008, 05:53 PM
That's what Dick Nixon said about Mao...
he feared them slanty eyed yellow people.
Archangel
10-24-2008, 05:58 PM
Hey, Hitler took a downtrodden country with triple-digit inflation whose industrial centres were occupied by the French, and for a few years, turned that into the premier industrial power in the world (until America woke up). Can't front on that.
Yelram
10-24-2008, 06:10 PM
Absolutely. One guy let US interests go on raping his country, and the other had the fucking audacity not to. As for mass murder, who gives a shit about smelly brown people anyway, right?
Also, since when is Ahmedinejad, jackass though he may be, a "rogue dictator"? Last I checked, he was elected by the people of Iran in an election that was at least as fair as the one you people had in 2000...
It's funny when people are so besotten by ideology that spin becomes a natural reaction, and they lose all capacity to recognise hypocrisy.
What happened to you? You arent the same as you were...
Archangel
10-24-2008, 06:11 PM
Alcohol, womenfolk, video games...
Claydon
10-24-2008, 06:17 PM
Wine, womenfolk, video games...
taters
10-24-2008, 07:29 PM
Hey hey hey now....to conservatives (Reagan, Bush sr, McCain), Pinochet was an ally in the fight against communism...in his gasing, torturing and murdering democracy supporters in Chile.
Genius
10-24-2008, 07:36 PM
All Pinochet remarks aside, this meeting is actually exactly what John McCain said he would do with such situations. Have lower level representatives of the US government (i.e. McCain in 1985) meet with dictators or enemies of the United States. As far as I know, he's never gone on record saying that he agrees with the Bush stance of cutting off all contact with evildoers. Although I think Palin did (mistakenly?) make such a comment.
Gary_Busey
10-24-2008, 07:45 PM
This is a foreign policy matter that I think Obama is completely right on. How can anything good come out of not communicating? Even General Petraeus agrees with Obama.
Claydon
10-24-2008, 10:18 PM
This is a foreign policy matter that I think Obama is completely right on. How can anything good come out of not communicating? Even General Petraeus agrees with Obama.
because the president does not go out without a long ground work of pre conditions set up by the diplomats. This is something that has always been and will always be. Nixon did not fly to china on a whim, it took two years of painstaking diplomatic work to create the right atmosphere for these two too meet. When Kennedy was first elected and met Kruschev without ANY road work, the Soviet Premier buried Kennedy, and Kennedy even admitted he had his ass kicked. This gave the soviets a feeling of superiority, one of many reasons they planted ICBMs in Cuba.
Genius
10-24-2008, 10:40 PM
I see that as more of a failing on Kennedy's part than anything else. Had it been a different President, he may have "handed Khrushchev's ass to him". After all, Nikita gained an advantage by meeting with Kennedy with no preconditions. Even the biggest naysayer has to admit that there are potential advantages to be gained from meeting without preconditions. What if Barack shows up, and being the classy guy that he is, makes Ahmedenijad look like a radical warmongering idiot racist neo-fundamentalist jackass moron in front of the whole world, which causes the lower classes of Iran to rise up and cast out him and the Ayatollah? Could happen.
taters
10-24-2008, 10:41 PM
because the president does not go out without a long ground work of pre conditions set up by the diplomats.
Sure, but when your conditions are (as Bushes were) "agree to stop whatever your doing and surrender to our wishes", it doesnt really get on other nations good sides.
You all seem to be forgetting that perhaps the reason why McCain and Bush before him did not want pre-conditions is precisely for the fact that they DONT want diplomatic peace, that as long as there are 'terror threats' out there, it equals republican fear factor votes.
Claydon
10-24-2008, 10:46 PM
Sure, but when your conditions are (as Bushes were) "agree to stop whatever your doing and surrender to our wishes", it doesnt really get on other nations good sides.
You all seem to be forgetting that perhaps the reason why McCain and Bush before him did not want pre-conditions is precisely for the fact that they DONT want diplomatic peace, that as long as there are 'terror threats' out there, it equals republican fear factor votes.
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
Insomniac
10-24-2008, 10:52 PM
Iranians/Persians are savages?
Seriously dude. Come on.
Genius
10-24-2008, 10:54 PM
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
They should have a Big Brother just for you. Claydon, four liberals, three Muslims, and three black people. Instant ratings.
Claydon
10-24-2008, 10:54 PM
Iranians/Persians are savages?
Seriously dude. Come on.
Their government is yes, and I do not want to hear about the beauty of the Persian Empire as that was centuries ago. The hanging of homosexuals, their vitriolic and racist views on the jews etc is savage.
YAH THATS RIGHT SAVAGE!
But what about the beauty of the Persian Empire as that was centuries ago?
kid_vidrio
10-24-2008, 11:04 PM
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
Generalize much?
Oh, it's you.
Never mind.
Genius
10-24-2008, 11:16 PM
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
Their government is yes, and I do not want to hear about the beauty of the Persian Empire as that was centuries ago. The hanging of homosexuals, their vitriolic and racist views on the jews etc is savage.
YAH THATS RIGHT SAVAGE!
???
taters
10-25-2008, 12:59 AM
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
1. What about the other nations of the world?
2. The iranians were on a good path until their revolution. Essentially, they had a choice between what we have in a more extreme sense sans capitolism (moral-cultural theocracy) and communism, and the communists lost out.
Ever since the fall of zoroastorianism in Persia, its been one conflicting group after another.
By the way, 1000 years ago (hell, 200 years ago and before), they were among the more tolerant places in the world for jewish people.
When European Jews were still being victimized and dehumanized by the nobles and psuedo-republics of old europe, sephardic and middle eastern jews were one of the higher social classes in many of that regions countries.
Hell, during the dark ages, the moors and their tolerance of all peoples of the one god in spain and morrocco are the reasons why we still have the works of the ancient greeks and early hard sciences. The Europeans of that time were in one of their book burning, theocratic periods.
vasili denisov
10-25-2008, 01:40 AM
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats.
There are a number of examples which demonstrate that the US has often been indifferent to the protection of diplomats; since Chile was brought up earlier, there's Orlando Leiter who was killed in a car bomb in DC, organized by Operation Condor, a co-operative of several Latin American states which engaged in high level assassinations and which the US backed. Another might be backing the killing of Diem in Viet Nam. I don't think that means the US is somehow morally equivalent to Iran; I just think you're making broad condemnations of Iranian actions that could condemn past US actions.
If you believe such actions were necessary and justified to win the cold war, then consider this: the Iranians originally were going to storm the Soviet embassy and take their personnel hostage; should the US then have backed the Iranians because it helped achieve its long-term goals? If such an action is never justified, then there are actions that the US committed which involved far greater loss of life which are not justified.
Das Kahlua
10-25-2008, 01:40 AM
1. What about the other nations of the world?
2. The iranians were on a good path until their revolution. Essentially, they had a choice between what we have in a more extreme sense sans capitolism (moral-cultural theocracy) and communism, and the communists lost out.
Ever since the fall of zoroastorianism in Persia, its been one conflicting group after another.
By the way, 1000 years ago (hell, 200 years ago and before), they were among the more tolerant places in the world for jewish people.
When European Jews were still being victimized and dehumanized by the nobles and psuedo-republics of old europe, sephardic and middle eastern jews were one of the higher social classes in many of that regions countries.
Hell, during the dark ages, the moors and their tolerance of all peoples of the one god in spain and morrocco are the reasons why we still have the works of the ancient greeks and early hard sciences. The Europeans of that time were in one of their book burning, theocratic periods.
If we're looking at this current situation from the lens of 200 years ago, 1000 years ago or 'during the dark ages,' then it should be a relatively short one, since neither the modern day US nor Israel as we know it, existed then.
You can look back to the past as much as you want, it won't change what is currently happening today.
BIG PIZZLE
10-25-2008, 01:44 AM
I bet you the real John McCain would vote for Obama.
Das Kahlua
10-25-2008, 02:03 AM
I bet you the real John McCain would vote for Obama.
I bet you the real John McCain was involved in the liberation of the Philippines long before Obama went to school there.
taters
10-25-2008, 02:33 AM
If we're looking at this current situation from the lens of 200 years ago, 1000 years ago or 'during the dark ages,' then it should be a relatively short one, since neither the modern day US nor Israel as we know it, existed then.
You can look back to the past as much as you want, it won't change what is currently happening today.
Umm, ok, so what exactly are you saying?
BIG PIZZLE
10-25-2008, 03:13 AM
I bet you the real John McCain was involved in the liberation of the Philippines long before Obama went to school there.
I bet the real John McCain never went to class and was a shitty pilot.
Say what you will about Pinochet, the free trade policies that he began left Chile with a much higher standard of living than the rest of the continent.I have to add to previous replies on that post.
Both US middle-eastern archenemies, Saddam and al-Gaddafi, were performing damn well on many scopes: Libya and Iraq had amongst the highest GDPs per capita in the region (Libya still has); besides, average standard of living, education and healthcare systems have been largely improved during their reigns. Wait ...
Compare Pinochet to what Castro has done to Cuba. There is a clear difference.Yes it is: Cuban economy was largely fucked up by a commercial embargo imposed by USA.
When Kennedy was first elected and met Kruschev without ANY road work, the Soviet Premier buried Kennedy, and Kennedy even admitted he had his ass kicked. This gave the soviets a feeling of superiority, one of many reasons they planted ICBMs in Cuba.Nope, it was prevalently a reaction against US designation of PGM-19 Jupiter ICMBs in Italy and especially in Turkey.
VoxAngelikus
10-25-2008, 08:57 AM
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.[/MLK]
So Hitler was better than Castro because he was far better for the German economy than Fidel was for Cuba's?
There is no real lesser of two evils in this scenario. Hitler took over a country that was imploding thanks to hyperinflation and used their anger to attempt to take over the world. While Castro took over a country with the third highest per capita standard of living and drove it into the ground.
My point is that for all the anger directed towards Pinochet, on a relative basis, he didn't drive the country into the ground like Castro did. Economic freedom leads to political freedom. Pinochet transferred his position as President peacefully (granted after a long time in power) to his political rivals. Compare this to Castro, where he is dying and his brother is taking over. The removal of Castro has done nothing to free the people of Cuba from the shackles of communism.
kid_vidrio
10-25-2008, 03:42 PM
Economic freedom leads to political freedom. Pinochet transferred his position as President peacefully (granted after a long time in power) to his political rivals. Compare this to Castro, where he is dying and his brother is taking over. The removal of Castro has done nothing to free the people of Cuba from the shackles of communism.
Pinochet had the unfettered support of the US economy and was an experiment for Friedman's 'Chicago Boys' so your belief that it was a success story is no mystery.
Fidel/Cuba on the other hand had no such support (as Arch pointed out.)
So you really not know any of this?
Pinochet had the unfettered support of the US economy and was an experiment for Friedman's 'Chicago Boys' so your belief that it was a success story is no mystery.
Fidel/Cuba on the other hand had no such support (as Arch pointed out.)
So you really not know any of this?
I am well aware of the embargo against Cuba (I did grow up in S. Florida). I am also aware of the U.S.S.R.s role in keeping Cuba's economy from collapsing.
If it was up to me, I would remove the embargo against Cuba. But, I am not so it stays.
I don't think that you can really call Chile an experiment in free trade. After WWII, free trade was an integral part of our Cold War strategy. The benefits of free trade weren't a big secret in the 70s, well maybe they were a secret to some people. The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/533716.stm) has a brief history of free trade.
Kerjack
10-25-2008, 03:55 PM
I bet the real John McCain never went to class and was a shitty pilot.
You know who was not a shitty pilot? Dick Shaffer
d2e_1189969486
93a_1189969873
kid_vidrio
10-25-2008, 05:33 PM
I am well aware of the embargo against Cuba (I did grow up in S. Florida). I am also aware of the U.S.S.R.s role in keeping Cuba's economy from collapsing.
If it was up to me, I would remove the embargo against Cuba. But, I am not so it stays.
I don't think that you can really call Chile an experiment in free trade. After WWII, free trade was an integral part of our Cold War strategy. The benefits of free trade weren't a big secret in the 70s, well maybe they were a secret to some people. The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/533716.stm) has a brief history of free trade.
But to say that the free market worked there....have you heard of the 'Chicago Boys?' Are you aware of the US involvement, experimenting with with Friedman's theory by assisting in the overthrow of Allende (who was duly elected) so the U of C crew could set up shop?
But to say that the free market worked there....have you heard of the 'Chicago Boys?' Are you aware of the US involvement, experimenting with with Friedman's theory by assisting in the overthrow of Allende (who was duly elected) so the U of C crew could set up shop?
At no point did I say that Pinochet is my ideal ruler. I am simply saying that, compared to the other dictators of his era, he is the least worst of the bunch.
The CIA has a long track record of fucking things up. I don't thing that this is an isolated incident.
taters
10-26-2008, 02:45 AM
At no point did I say that Pinochet is my ideal ruler. I am simply saying that, compared to the other dictators of his era, he is the least worst of the bunch.
The CIA has a long track record of fucking things up. I don't thing that this is an isolated incident.
Is there a such thing as a 'least worst'?
Comparatively, there is always someone worst. Therefore each has to be judged as 'worst'.
At no point did I say that Pinochet is my ideal ruler. I am simply saying that, compared to the other dictators of his era, he is the least worst of the bunch.
The CIA has a long track record of fucking things up. I don't thing that this is an isolated incident.I can easily compare Pinochet with Saddam; both of them were
dictators that came on power with active support of CIA
allies of USA - at least for a while
butchering their political opponents ruthlessly
maintaining a growth of GDP (Saddam until economic sanctions)
were accused of human rights abuse and trialed, eventually
A rhetorically question: what was the major difference between those two?
Debo, a prevalent part of Chileans hasn’t benefited from so-called “The Miracle of Chile”, as dubbed by Chicago Boys (Friedman and co). Beneficiaries of “the miracle” was at thin layer of riches, well connected to the Junta and - of course - foreign (US) corporations, while a share of Chileans living below the poverty level has in the mid-1980s even increased above 45%.
Wait, a concern about majority of population is a clear sign of liberalism = communism, right?
P.S.: Again, Cuban economy was/is largely fucked up by a commercial embargo imposed by USA.
Archangel
10-27-2008, 03:11 AM
When Kennedy was first elected and met Kruschev without ANY road work, the Soviet Premier buried Kennedy, and Kennedy even admitted he had his ass kicked. This gave the soviets a feeling of superiority, one of many reasons they planted ICBMs in Cuba.
*IRBMs. Get your facts right. That was the whole fucking point.
With regards to the Iranians, fuck them. They are savages anyways that have no concept of the term diplomacy, or the protections of diplomats. Something that has been well established for well over a thousand years.
Absolutely.
It's not like Ibn Sina is considered one of the most influential thinkers in history, and partly responsible for the rise of Humanism and the Renaissance in Europe, and that Persian thinkers, writers and artists were some of the most sought after during the Middle Ages.
Seriously, stick to American history: Anything that goes back more than 200 years leaves you hopelessly out of your depth. Oh, and a friend of my dad's is the current German ambassador to Teheran, and the only thing he is afraid of are American bombs, thank you very much.
Archangel
10-27-2008, 03:13 AM
My point is that for all the anger directed towards Pinochet, on a relative basis, he didn't drive the country into the ground like Castro did. Economic freedom leads to political freedom. Pinochet transferred his position as President peacefully (granted after a long time in power) to his political rivals. Compare this to Castro, where he is dying and his brother is taking over. The removal of Castro has done nothing to free the people of Cuba from the shackles of communism.
Dude, there are more important things than the bloody economy.
Claydon
10-27-2008, 03:15 AM
Dude, there are more important things than the bloody economy.
Not to americans, americans are defined by the things that they own and could purchase. The reason the vast majority of immigrants come here is to have economic security. Take that away and you take away what is to most americans the very foundation of this country (i disagree). However, at this time with the government approving basically trillions with the stroke of a pen people are nervous. It is also the fear factor, in 04 bush used terrorism, in 08 obama is using the economy.
Archangel
10-27-2008, 03:34 AM
So if a bloke murders a million or more people, but raises his country's GDP by 50% or more, he's a hero?
I wonder why Milton Friedman isn't a fan of Adolf Hitler.
Mustard
10-27-2008, 07:06 AM
Not to americans, americans are defined by the things that they own and could purchase. The reason the vast majority of immigrants come here is to have economic security. Take that away and you take away what is to most americans the very foundation of this country (i disagree). However, at this time with the government approving basically trillions with the stroke of a pen people are nervous. It is also the fear factor, in 04 bush used terrorism, in 08 obama is using the economy.
1) I would like to believe that I am defined by the type of person I am, and not defined with regards to how many toys I have.
2) I thought the reason the vast majority of immigrants came here was to have freedom. Economic security surely comes with freedom, but sure freedom does not come along with economic security.
3) That was a sweet Karl Rovesque statement at the end, that in 08, "Obama is using the economy [as a fear factor]." Very crafty... *snaps*