Pinochet is dead

Stargal

BBC News is reporting here that Pinochet has died.

He never fully apologised for everything that he'd done - in November he accepted 'political responsibility' for all that went on in Chile but there was no apology to the victims or even an attempt to explain it all.

The man was a tyrant, who managed to evade all attempts at being brought to justice. I doubt I'm the only one thinking good riddance, now that he's gone.

A Dub in Glasgo

He should have died in prison

SeanW

true, but good riddance nonetheless.

mike65

Yep, no flowers please. May Mugabe follow him shortly.

Mike.

nacho libre

I wonder will Margaret be attending his funeral?

Akrasia

i think pinochet died of a broken heart after he heard of the passing of his dear friend Milton Friedman

Rebeller

What I want to know is how come tyrants such as Pinochet tend to leave long relatively healthy lives and only die of old age in comfortable surroundings.

Unlike their victims many of whom are buried in unmarked graves.

Makes me question if there really is anything such as natural justice or karma.

If he is in fact dead may he suffer for eternity for the crimes he has committed (presuming there is an afterlife of course)

Akrasia

Rebeller wrote:

What I want to know is how come tyrants such as Pinochet tend to leave long relatively healthy lives and only die of old age in comfortable surroundings.

Unlike their victims many of whom are buried in unmarked graves.

Makes me question if there really is anything such as natural justice or karma.

If he is in fact dead may he suffer for eternity for the crimes he has committed (presuming there is an afterlife of course)

There would be such a thing as justice, but the gods of selfishness and cynicism have overpowered the human spirit because they could afford to pay for slick marketing campaigns, the cooption of political and education systems and almost monopolistic ownership of all forms of mass media.

I blame capitalism, the high priest of Pinochet and Friedman, and their god, Private ownership of capital.

The_Minister

Akrasia wrote:

i think pinochet died of a broken heart after he heard of the passing of his dear friend Milton Friedman

What do his economic views have to do with anything?
Most capitalist manage to get along just fine and dandy, with out mass murder.
Similarly, many communist regimes have committed mass murder.
Economics does not explain away his actions. Other capitalists in his position would have found a different solution.

Andrew 83

The_Minister wrote:

What do his economic views have to do with anything?
Most capitalist manage to get along just fine and dandy, with out mass murder.
Similarly, many communist regimes have committed mass murder.
Economics does not explain away his actions. Other capitalists in his position would have found a different solution.

Some right wing people like to portray Pinochet as Chile's greatest ever leader as he kept the economy going well (people in the 'Freedom Institute' for instance).


As has been said, it's a terrible pity that he got to live such a good life and not go to jail for his crimes.

A Dub in Glasgo

Maggie is 'greatly saddened' to hear of the death of her mate. Just about sums her up.

Akrasia

The_Minister wrote:

What do his economic views have to do with anything?
Most capitalist manage to get along just fine and dandy, with out mass murder.

i suppose that depends on how you define mass murder.

Similarly, many communist regimes have committed mass murder.

yep, totalitarian communists. but you can't justify the failings of capitalism by pointing towards the crimes of Stalinism. there are other options.

Economics does not explain away his actions. Other capitalists in his position would have found a different solution.

Other capitalists would not have been his position, nor would he have been, if it was not for the U.S. supported overthrow of the popular and democratic government of Allende. Pinochet's violence was as a result of his attempts to impose a violent and oppressive system on an unwilling population. It could not have been done in any other way.... and there are violent pro-capitalist military dictatorships scattered all around 20th century history to demonstrate that point

tallus

I remember seeing her (maggie) singing his praises and saying what a great man he was.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.

mike65

The main reason she thought well of Pinochet was due to the help Chile gave during the Falkland Conflict in '82. The Argies were pissed off when the UK was able to avail of Chilian intelligence and radar coverage. Argentina and Chile had thier own on-going squable regarding a vital waterway in Tierra del Fuego.

Mike.

Kojak

Good riddance to him - he should have had stood trial years ago. According to reports 1000's died while he was in charge of Chile during the period 1973 to 1990 and yet he never faced trial, even when he set foot in Englad a few years ago.

Margret Thatcher then to say she was "deeply saddened" is just plain wrong. It really says a lot about old Maggie :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

The main reason she thought well of Pinochet was due to the help Chile gave during the Falkland Conflict in '82. The Argies were pissed off when the UK was able to avail of Chilian intelligence and radar coverage. Argentina and Chile had thier own on-going squable regarding a vital waterway in Tierra del Fuego.

Mike.

mike, that's one virgin chicken you've got there... or an orphan egg....


Thatcher loved pinochet because they had the same political philosophy. There is no 'cause and effect' scenario here, it's a case of kindred spirits. The fact is, thatcher has never condemned pinochet, and has stood by him whenever any of the current charges were leveled against him.

The Corinthian

Rebeller wrote:

What I want to know is how come tyrants such as Pinochet tend to leave long relatively healthy lives and only die of old age in comfortable surroundings.

Like Castro?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

Like Castro?

Spot on. Of course Pinochet should have been tried for his wrongs, as should other murderous despots like Fidel.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

Spot on. Of course Pinochet should have been tried for his wrongs, as should other murderous despots like Fidel.

And Thatcher, Bush, Blair, Putin.......

The Corinthian

Is that on a basis of their being dictators or simply because you don't like their politics?

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

And Thatcher, Bush, Blair, Putin.......

errr, my knowledge of history probably isn't as great as yours but weren't all 4 of these democratically elected (more than once)?

Pinochet and Castro seized power unlawfully

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

Is that on a basis of their being dictators or simply because you don't like their politics?

they are all responsible for war crimes.

the_syco

WW2 should have taught us that winners don't goto jail, thus Bush and his ilk will be free, but "da axis of evil b*satrds" will all goto prison.

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

they are all responsible for war crimes.

How come you left out guys like Ortega and Castro in your war criminals list? The former was associated with numerous atrocities in Nicaragua and the latter funded war in a number of other countries, most notably Angola.

Is there a reason you like to only damn right wing dictators and alleged war criminals?

The_Minister

What was Thatcher's warcrime?

Akrasia

The_Minister wrote:

What was Thatcher's warcrime?

Ok well thatcher probably doesn't belong in that list. tho the falklands war was a total waste of lives for imperialism and to save her political career

I didn't include Castro, but he was already mentioned.

Time Magazine

Akrasia wrote:

Ok well thatcher probably doesn't belong in that list. tho the falklands war was a total waste of lives for imperialism and to save her political career

And the take-over was achieved by everyone holding hands and making a human-chain to the island.

I didn't include Castro, but he was already mentioned.

What about Ortega? Fan of Mugabe much?

El Stuntman

Akrasia wrote:

Ok well thatcher probably doesn't belong in that list. tho the falklands war was a total waste of lives for imperialism and to save her political career

Thatcher didn't invade the Falklands, Argentina did....

and the upshot of that little escapade was the downfall of a nasty little military dictatorship in Argentina...a Good Thing surely?

oh, and also there was no electable opposition in Britain at the time (ask Tony Blair, he said it)

anyway we have gone far enough OT, I agree with the OP - good riddance to Pinochet

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

How come you left out guys like Ortega and Castro in your war criminals list? The former was associated with numerous atrocities in Nicaragua and the latter funded war in a number of other countries, most notably Angola.

Is there a reason you like to only damn right wing dictators and alleged war criminals?

Not so familiar with Ortega's association with war crimes...other than the ones that were committed against his countrymen by the Contras and their CIA buddies.
Castro did fund war in Angola...when he sent troops to fight for the democratically elected leaders of that country against the wishes of the US government and apartheid era South Africa.

sovtek

The_Minister wrote:

What was Thatcher's warcrime?

I'm not sure of all the specifics but I remember hearing about British military nastiness under her watch going on in the North.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Not so familiar with Ortega's association with war crimes...other than the ones that were committed against his countrymen by the Contras and their CIA buddies.

Try Googling for it, you shouldn't have to go far to find accounts of Sandinista atrocities. It's interesting though you're only educated to the atrocities of one side of that conflict.

Castro did fund war in Angola...when he sent troops to fight for the democratically elected leaders of that country against the wishes of the US government and apartheid era South Africa.

A dictator sent troops to defend democracy? Are you trying to be serious?

El Stuntman

The Corinthian wrote:

Try Googling for it, you shouldn't have to go far to find accounts of Sandinista atrocities. It's interesting though you're only educated to the atrocities of one side of that conflict.

A dictator sent troops to defend democracy? Are you trying to be serious?

Hi Corinthian,

the above post is symptomatic of a very serious ocular disorder which afflicts many trendy liberals in this country; they can only see the 'crimes' committed by either their own country/government or their own countries natural allies.

to whit:

Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter innocent civilians - deafening silence from trendy liberals
Israeli Army kills people in retaliation - huge diatribe against Israel/Bush etc etc from aforementioned trendy liberals

it's boring

mike65

Its lazy more than boring. You'll rarely get a sociatist to admit that left wing authoritarian governments are anything other than an unfortunate neccessity bought on by right-wing imperialist oppression so requiring a strong socialist to protect the poeple.

Mike.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Try Googling for it, you shouldn't have to go far to find accounts of Sandinista atrocities. It's interesting though you're only educated to the atrocities of one side of that conflict.

Could be that the world court found in favor of the one side as opposed to the other.

A dictator sent troops to defend democracy? Are you trying to be serious?

It's a crazy world.

sovtek

mike65 wrote:

Its lazy more than boring. You'll rarely get a sociatist to admit that left wing authoritarian governments are anything other than an unfortunate neccessity bought on by right-wing imperialist oppression so requiring a strong socialist to protect the poeple.

Mike.

What socialists have said that in this thread?

Akrasia

El Stuntman wrote:

Hi Corinthian,

the above post is symptomatic of a very serious ocular disorder which afflicts many trendy liberals in this country; they can only see the 'crimes' committed by either their own country/government or their own countries natural allies.

to whit:

Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter innocent civilians - deafening silence from trendy liberals
Israeli Army kills people in retaliation - huge diatribe against Israel/Bush etc etc from aforementioned trendy liberals

it's boring

Yeah, The palestinians slaughter innocents, and the Israelis are only 'retaliating'

The bias works both ways.

In reality, most people choose a side.

I have chosen my position, I am anti capitalist and anti imperialist. I didn't choose this position randomly, I arrived at this world view based on the things that I see going on every day and on the academic resources I have access to.

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

Its lazy more than boring. You'll rarely get a sociatist to admit that left wing authoritarian governments are anything other than an unfortunate neccessity bought on by right-wing imperialist oppression so requiring a strong socialist to protect the poeple.

Mike.

I am a socialist, I am also an anarchist. I of course condemn authoritarianism on both the 'left', and the 'right'

There are very few people 'on the left' who support Stalin, but there are many 'on the right' who support Pinochet. Many on the 'right' complain about 'left wing dictators' while completely ignoring all of the right wing dictators who are little more than proxies and clients of their beloved U.S.A.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

A dictator sent troops to defend democracy? Are you trying to be serious?

It wasn't about 'democracy' it was ideological. Socialism versus Fascism.

The Anarchists fought on the side of the Spanish government against Franco in the Spanish civil war. It doesn't mean they supported a Spanish republic, it means they were desperate to prevent the fascists from taking control.

I consider fighting against fascism to be a just cause.

sovtek

Akrasia wrote:

It wasn't about 'democracy' it was ideological. Socialism versus Fascism.

The MPLA was democratically elected though.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Could be that the world court found in favor of the one side as opposed to the other.

Are you suggesting that this means they did not commit atrocities or that they should not be held equally accountable for them then?

It's a crazy world.

Care to respond to the question or would you prefer to remain glib?

Akrasia wrote:

I consider fighting against fascism to be a just cause.

I see... so it's not really about democracy or dictators or human rights really - it's all about "four legs good, two legs bad".

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote:

I see... so it's not really about democracy or dictators or human rights really - it's all about "four legs good, two legs bad".

No, it's all about human rights. 'Democracy/dictator' is just another term that is bandied about as a political weapon.

Bush is 'democratically elected' but there is ample evidence that he committed election theft both times.

Chavez is 'democratically elected' but this doesn't stop people on the right calling him a 'quasi-dictator'

To me, none of these systems are truly democratic because rule by the people (which is what democracy is) is more than just appointing short term dictators dictators for a short term rule.

I support the struggle against oppressive leaders in a 'democratic' country just as much as i support those resisting a dictatorship.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

I support the struggle against oppressive leaders in a 'democratic' country just as much as i support those resisting a dictatorship.

So do I. I do equally little in both cases. You?

Anyway, back to Pinochet. Anyone going to test the waters with a 'fair play to him, he stopped another Marxist state' line or am I on my own?

The Corinthian

Akrasia wrote:

No, it's all about human rights. 'Democracy/dictator' is just another term that is bandied about as a political weapon.

How can it all be about human rights when you're more than happy to condemn one side for abusing them and consider the other justified in doing the same thing?

Bush is 'democratically elected' but there is ample evidence that he committed election theft both times.

Those accusations, especially the second time, are very dubious to say the least, so you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

Chavez is 'democratically elected' but this doesn't stop people on the right calling him a 'quasi-dictator'

Yet there have been numerous accusations of him acting in a manner that undermines a fair democracy. It seems unashamedly partisan that you're willing to turn a blind eye to this yet are happy to accept as truth any such accusations made of Bush or Putin.

To me, none of these systems are truly democratic because rule by the people (which is what democracy is) is more than just appointing short term dictators dictators for a short term rule.

Again that's a dubious assertion. By your own admission you seem primarily interested not in human rights, but your vision of human rights. Just like Thatcher and Pinochet and Bush are. You're no different - just left wing.

I support the struggle against oppressive leaders in a 'democratic' country just as much as i support those resisting a dictatorship.

The end justifies the means, in essence.

Sand

I think somebody asked about Pinochet living a long comftable life, and karma - Id agree that Pinochet might be the counterweight for Castro in the great "some Right, some Left but all dictators" contest in the sky. Theres no afterlife though, so he has effectively got away with it. He was never going to stand trial so its not an opportunity missed in that regard.

What socialists have said that in this thread?

Are you being specific to this thread because its about Pinochet, or because you know that Redplanet has solidly supported Fidel and his regime - despite their human rights abuses and political murders/jailings - in the Cuba thread?

Im pretty sure that no ones going to arrive in hailing Pinochet as the heroic embodiment of the great country of Chile, but when Castro pops his clogs - well, suddenly the world will be a smaller, less cheerful place for many.

Luckily theyll have Chavez for, oh decades to come when he installs himself for life.

I have chosen my position, I am anti capitalist and anti imperialist.

Interesting defintions of your views - would you disaprove of an anti-capitalist/anti-imperialist government that committed human rights abuses? Or would it be enough they were [declared, at least] anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist?

Maybe some people have a world view that starts at basic liberalism rather than labels?

El Stuntman

Deleted User wrote:

Anyone going to test the waters with a 'fair play to him, he stopped another Marxist state' line or am I on my own?

LOL

no fish biting?

sovtek

Sand wrote:

Luckily theyll have Chavez for, oh decades to come when he installs himself for life.

Maybe some people have a world view that starts at basic liberalism rather than labels?

Except, of course, when they don't agree with your economic theories on how to run a country. It doesn't seem to be dictators you have a problem with.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Except, of course, when they don't agree with your economic theories on how to run a country. It doesn't seem to be dictators you have a problem with.

Funny, that's exactly what everyone else is accusing you and Akrasia of.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Funny, that's exactly what everyone else is accusing you and Akrasia of.

Inaccurately so...yes.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Inaccurately so...yes.

Inaccurate only in that magical World where "it's a crazy world" is considered a valid rebuttal. Alternatively, you're more than welcome to respond seriously to the points raised if you're so convinced of our inaccuracy.

bobbyjoe

Why does everything turn into left verses right?
The threads about Pinochet it would be interesting to find some views about him form other people. He was a murdering, coward, thieving scumbag in my opinion.
Do I have to write a big list of every other thing I ever condemned or think is wrong to express it?

A Dub in Glasgo

It is whataboutry at it's finest