Saddam’s justice: a tale of two videos
There’s a bootleg video of Saddam’s execution circulating online. Taken surrepticiously by a witness with a cellphone camera (the photographer has since been arrested), it shows a semi-carnival atmosphere, with the former dictator being mocked and exchanging taunts with some in the crowd before he is hung.
The Iraqis were in charge at that point. US officials say they would have done it differently, in an atmosphere of greater dignity. I believe them–and, from the descriptions of the video (I haven’t watched it), it would have been an improvement on what actually happened.
The footage of the execution has been condemned as inflammatory and likely to incite Sunnis. Perhaps this is true–although lately, predictions of what the “Arab street” will do have been dismal. But there’s little question the Iraqi government is unhappy that the footage was taken and released; it definitely shows the event as less controlled and more mob-like than they would liked it to have been.
And yet, when observers who number among a tyrant’s victims are witnesses to his execution, it’s almost inevitable that they will have a hard time keeping their mouths shut. I wrote previously about what happened to Mussolini’s body, for example; these images from Saddam’s execution fall very far short of that sort of desecration, obviously.
But it’s just as obvious that it would have been better if no taunting and exchange of insults had occurred at all. Yes, Saddam’s execution was way too much of a “spectacle,” and it’s unfortunate that it happened that way.
However, it’s hard to get too incensed at the Shiites involved for giving vent to their emotions, considering the murders Saddam perpetrated against that group (although it’s easier to blame them for their support of al Sadr; apparently they shouted his name as part of the taunting). And the words ““The tyrant has fallen,” which were spoken around the moment Saddam died, seem only appropriate.
There can be no comparison whatsoever between the emotional outbursts that marred the “dignity” of Saddam’s last moments (and in which he, by the way, participated, giving back as good as he got), and the lack of “dignity” he afforded his own victims when he was in power. Everyone knows about the gassings, the rape rooms, the torture.
But I want to focus on another chilling sequence, back when Saddam first came to power.
Saddam was originally right hand man to his cousin Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, President of Iraq in the early 60s. Together, they eliminated rivals and modernized Iraq. The realpolitik of those Cold War times made the US take their side against Soviet-sympathetic rivals. The US role was not pretty, but it seemed pragmatic at the time, the best of a bunch of bad choices in the region.
And yet Saddam hadn’t shown his true colors yet. Murders of rival factions in Iraq were par for the course in those days–each modern succession had been accomplished by the assassination of the previous rulers. As al Bakr’s second in command, Saddam was the architect of a strong internal security apparatus, it’s true. But he also:
…became personally associated with Ba’athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, widening his appeal both within his traditional base and among new sectors of the population. These programs were part of a combination of “carrot and stick” tactics to enhance support in the working class, the peasantry, and within the party and the government bureaucracy. Saddam’s organizational prowess was credited with Iraq’s rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.
But Saddam’s real goal was his own personal power, and to that end he slowly usurped his cousin’s rule, taking charge of the country years before he formally became President in 1979 by pushing his cousin out for good (although he didn’t murder him).
It was at that point, finally in control, that Saddam’s Stalinesque tendencies became fully visible, in a true “show trial” of staggering sadistic intent (and note that Saddam had the proceedings videotaped):
No sooner had [Saddam attained the Presidency] than he purged the party’s Revolutionary Command Council. Hussein announced the discovery of a plot against himself and the Baathist regime. Then he held a kind of show trial, which he videotaped. The footage shows party members gathered in a large auditorium. Saddam Hussein is on stage, smoking a cigar. The alleged plot leader confesses his crime. Then he reads out the names of his supposed co-conspirators. As their names are called out they are led from the hall to be arrested and shot. Members of the audience shout out their allegiance to Saddam Hussein.
You notice the mounting hysteria as nobody knows quite who’s name is going to be called out next. And so of course this means that the survivors cheer even more frenziedly for Saddam Hussein. It’s a very chilling documentary. But Saddam Hussein wanted that to be seen. This was an exercise of power which he would use to impress upon the surviving Baathists in Iraq that he had absolute control over their lives and deaths.
According to Kanan Makiya:
And when the firing squad is assembled to execute these so-called traitors who does he use but the remaining members of the Revolutionary Command Council and his own ministers and so on to implicate them in a sense in his own rise to power. Because that is the event upon which he cements his own presidency.
At this point, the cult of Saddam had taken over. And that’s the way most of his decisions as President went; they were all about power, and about him. Shortly thereafter he managed to undo all the economic good the previous regime had accomplished by launching an ill-thought-out war on Iran, lasting eight years and accomplishing absolutely nothing except the death of hundreds of thousands (perhaps a million) of his own people, as well as huge numbers of Iranians. Next he pursued weapons of mass destruction at Osirik. Stupidity and desire for power also marked his Kuwait endeavor, although the length and the human cost of that foray weren’t as high as in the Iran war.
But back to that earlier video of the assembly of Party officials, Saddam’s show of sadistic force. It’s everything they say it is, and more. I’ve seen it myself, years ago, and I never forgot it. The look of satisfaction and enjoyment on the man’s face was extraordinary, the fear on the faces of his victims starkly chilling.
This was the essence of Saddam. If Iraq is a bloodthirsty place today, and if people are itching for revenge and accustomed to murder, Saddam, more than anyone else, is responsible for that. The video of his execution pales in comparison, I’m afraid.
I am not concerned that Saddam was executed. As I said yesterday, the main problem with the execution is that it was interrupted by taunts about Moqtada, which, in turn, makes the Iraqi government appear subservient to Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and which makes the US an enabler to these Shi’ite fundamentalists.
Of course, others could say that a condemned man should have his own say at the time of his death, be able to approach it on his own terms. That’s the way it was done at Nuremberg, for example. I agree.
There’s some interesting commentary on this from Christopher Hitchens, (a big Iraq war supporter), who also references a well-known essay by Orwell. Both recommended. And you really do have to watch that video, with the sound on.
But back to that earlier video of the assembly of Party officials, Saddam’s show of sadistic force.
It is quite effective, Neo. That execution style, which is only of many I have learned about and keep in a little grab bag labeled “creative punishments” was probably first started by the Romans. At least, recorded by history anyways. Decimation, a punishment where in the Romans pulled 1 out of every 10 man in a legion, and had his brothers in arms beat that those selected to death. A very… shall we say, cost-effective way to send a message and create discipline.
It is one of those I favor for GitMo. If we can’t kill all of them or even 50% of them, then why not 10%? But got to make that 10% count, and the Roman model of decimation was always both cost-effective as well as rather psychologically creative, Neo.
The video of his execution pales in comparison, I’m afraid.
Saddam was lucky that his executioners were so merciful. I am not so merciful to the guilty, nor do I believe are many other people in Iraq.
Some are scared of Al Sadr, they want to keep him in power, because they don’t want to get rid of him. Such weaklings on both sides of the Atlantic should be gotten rid of. Get them out of the way, just as Saddam was gotten out of the way, and maybe you’ll have a chance at prosperity and peace in Iraq. Although with the War on Terror going on, peace and prosperity isn’t going to be a common commodity in this world of ours any time soon.
Let’s just say that if the US purged Al Sadr and his cadre of revolutionaries in Parliament when they walked out of the government, there wouldn’t be any sense that the US is soft on Al Sadr.
But then again, if a person is not willing to support such harsh and efficient methods to deal with Al Sadr, then their protests matter about as much as the voices heard during Saddam’s execution.
Too many people think war is a game. They disgust me even more than evil men and women do.
As for Al-Sadr—yes, I wish we’d gotten him, but we were trying so hard to be compassionate and humanitarian, and not shoot up any mosques, or hurt anybody unnecessarily, we missed our chance. As Ymarsakar points out, war isn’t a game. If we don’t do what we have to, when we have to—well, having our sensibilities offended by crass (to us) camera videos is going to be least of our problems.
As for Saddam—what does it matter what he had to say, before his execution, or at any other time? Really, it’s as pointless as hearing OJ Simpson tell us “how he would have done it.” Saddam’s career pretty much speaks for itself. Apologies, explanations, pleas for mercy or yet another of his bombastic rants would have been meaningless.
The footage of the execution has been condemned as inflammatory and likely to incite Sunnis.
That link goes to the AP report does it not? I do not believe the AP has ever been our allies in this war. Pay no attention to enemy propaganda, I say, except to study and analyze it for weaknesses.
If Israel followed the AP advice over every Palestinian killed then Israel would have… well, been stuck in the situation Israel is in right now, wouldn’t they?
I recommend not following the AP’s advice, not even partially. Unless you prefer Israel’s 50 years of being constantly attacked and killed, that is.
The cycle of violence is broken by more violence, not less war.
The inside explanation was that some of Bush’s advisers told him Sadr needed to be gotten rid of, but some military advisers said that if you get rid of Sadr, then the Shia might attack the Ami military right when the Ami military was dealing with the Sunnis. So it seems the Left’s crucifixion of Bush’s “bring it on” quote got some rewards after all. Bush must have decided it wasn’t the time to tell the enemy to bring it on, it was time to “deal”. Give Sadr political power they said, make a deal they said. Leave him alone, they said. Nice.
This is the opposite of “bringing it on”, so to speak. Somebody didn’t want to “bring it on” from Sadr’s quarter by “martyring” him. Weak, pathetic, fools.
Course it wouldn’t matter what they told Bush, if Bush was hardcore. But Bush hasn’t been hardcore since 2002. I think he actually believed the Democrat propaganda, that he could take it “easier” on Iraq than Afghanistan because Iraq wasn’t responsible for 9/11. So he could wait 6 months, a year, two years even, in the UN. Wow. Very conservatively compassionate, Bush, I’m sure that saved a lot of American and Iraqi lives.x
There is a rumor, very probably true, that when Josef Djugashvili (Stalin’s real name) was a seminary student, the teacher gave class a homework – to explain the reasons of Julius Caesar failure to prevent his assassination. Young Stalin wrote that Ceasar built his personal power on his government power, and this was a mistake: he should have done vice versa. Saddam was true disciple of Stalin his admirer and imitator. The scene Neo described in her post is one-to-one copy of what Stalin did many times.
The Sunnis and Shias have been fighting for centuries. I honestly believe there’s little Americans can do either to make them stop it, or inflame an already touchy situation. (They already hate each other. If America, and Israel vanished from the face of the earth tomorrow, they’d hate each other still.)
I agree with Assisant Village Idiot here; America has far less influence on world affairs and cultures than the Left gives it credit for; the Sunnis have been inflammed against the Shias since before the Crusades.
I once read somewhere that whenever Stalin gave a speech to the party rank and file, buckets of lotion were placed around the hall. The reason was that nobody dared to be the first to stop applauding. So everybody clapped their hands bloody, which is why there was the lotion.
Such monsters deserve trials that are really morality plays, where the final act is their death; staged as spectacularly and theatrically as possible.
Saddam’s exit lacked that didactic showmanship, but the rest of the play went OK.
As they were about to kill a monster, they taunted him. Oh God! How horrific! How terrible! How can anyone sleep at night knowing this happened? Where’s the UN Human Rights Commission!? Oh Dear! Let’s all gnash our teeth and flog ourselves! The reaction is more sickening than the so-called taunting. He should have been put through a plastic shredder in public, or at least burned at the stake and those mourning him should have been tear gassed at the least. Is it any wonder terrorists find it so easy to kill Westerners? There is more of an outcry amongst Liberals over taunting a monster than beheading videos
Yes, goesh, I know;
They weren’t sickened by Saddam’s crimes, but they’re sickened by the fact that he was taunted before he was hung.
Disgusting.
sure, neoconned, all bloggers agree with all of our comment sections. We usually write ’em ourselves, actually. You can count on it. Take any of the quotes here and attribute them to the hostess. The AP might buy it, anyway. Playing the “baiting game” is just schoolyard.
Justaguy, if you think the Shia-Sunni rage does not predate the Crusades, you might look up the Battle of Karbala.
The Left always thinks people who disagree with them are violent lunatics, up to and past when they attempt to physically assault the disagreeable speaker on stage that is. One must always be prepared for violence from the Left, while hearing sweet promises of justice and righteousness. Just as one should hear pious praying and venedictions to the all mighty and merciful Allah, just before they saw off your head.
I leave the rhetoric of mercy and compassion to others more suited to inner conflict and lieing, those who can con their prey as they are eviscerating them.
Disgusting.
TalkinKamel | 01.03.07 – 8:14 pm | #
It is just a sign of their weakness, Talkin. All I know is that what truly cowes them is violence and power unleashed. Try to be soft, try to be merciful, try to be compassionate, and they will swarm all over you, Bush, and folks like Neo. Give them an inch, and the devil will take a mile.
After all, they know it works, because don’t GitMo boys have rights now? Isn’t Al Sadr alive because folks complained about the heavy handed US “occupation”?
It works. Doesn’t work against me, of course since I have no soft heart for them to exploit, but it sure works against Bush. And that’s all that matters. That, and well it annoys people, an important facet for the Left to consider.
Be confident when you lash them down and behead them. They’ll give you creds, if you claim you are a victim. If they know they can’t make you do things by guilty, they’ll try to get the so called ‘international pressure’ going on. They try to get a mob going on around here, to lynch folks. They only feel truly courageous in numbers, because they have no personal skills themselves at survival.
After all, it takes energy to blame America first. Not enough time left for other hobbies. Except well, peeing on Neo’s blog anyways.
It’s always good to know that the old troll baiting skill still works. Since I don’t have to read their comments or even respond. It’s just good eating.
What I see here is a wheezing and gasping jubilation by right wing USA as it nears its impending last breath. Billions will stand in line to beat its dead carcass and welcome a competent and dignified America.
The Sunni/Shia conflict dates back to the death of Mohammed. Since Mohammed died without sons, and didn’t specify who should succeed him, conflict arose between the followers of his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, and his son-in-law, Ali.
Here’s a pretty good website on the subject; http://www.wsu.edu:8080/
The Shia/Sunni conflict dates from the time of Mohammed’s death. He left no son, and named no male heirs, so conflict arose between those who thought his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, or his son-in-law, Ali, should lead Islam. Here’s a pretty good website on the subject: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ISLAM/UMAY.HTM—or you can just google “Shia Sunni Conflict”, or go to Clusty.com, and search there.
Googling, or Clustying, “Umayyad Caliphate” will give you a lot of info too.
`
Sorry about the double post (in a single post yet!) but there is a lot of information on Sunnis/Shias out there!
Thta’s assuming there aren’t billions being the dead carcass.
For those interested in some more Jacksonian material, read Grim here. Not a right winger (Airborne), but just as good!
War strategy read it here
Umay Link
Ymarsakar
Your writing is tangential with loose associations abounding. Have you been diagnosed as schizophrenic or bipolar?
Or are you an avid amphetamine abuser? Just curious.
My writing is good, unfortunately for you that was the only 5 or something words I read from you before I stopped. Minor use of will, really.
You see, that’s a wonderful example. One needs a cipher to decode your writing. Well that’s a bit of an exaggeration but I find reading your writing/ramblings very trying. I think this is partly because of the writing (grammar, sentence structure, etc) but mostly it’s your tangential manner of communicating mixed with what appears to be underlying breaks with reality. To some things up, your style of writing is indicative of an underlying pathology.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it weird that in the same breath we are saying Saddam deserved the justice he got and praising that “decent guy” Ford for pardoning Nixon for all crimes he might have committed. Something’s not right here.
btw: …I find reading your writing/ramblings very trying
So then maybe stop trying?
kungfu: Is it just me,…?
Pretty much. Some people deserve a rigorous justice, after all, and some deserve a pardon.
Kungfu
I think the right will be hand deliverying Bush, Cheney and most of their cabinet to the International Criminal Court before the year is out.
Kung fu, Sally pretty much summed it up regarding your comment, however…
Ford pardoned Nixon to spare the country years of political turmoil, actual turmoil. Ford, I have read, believed that the pardon did not represent a recognition of innocence but guilt, as no judgment of innocence was made. There is a 1915 (1912?) Supreme Court decision that he drew from. In other words, the pardon was not that Nixon was innocent but that the country deserved an end to it.
Comparing a Baathist dictator to Nixon is more than a stretch. As Neo pointed out with two videos.
“Comparing a Baathist dictator to Nixon is more than a stretch.”
But comparing Bush with Saadam is “right on the money”.
I saw parts of that meeting on US network TV when it happened. Probably on 60 Minutes. It was Stalinesque.
People can’t stop reading my comments, hate them as they may. They simply crave the goodness. They can’t stop the addiction, for their will is too weak to do so. Rather pathetic, but still.
There is no more controversial notion in the dictionary than justice. Everybody wants it, and everybody has his/her own perception what it is. Chomsky once argued that justice is “universal”; this, of course, is extension of his old bla-bla-bla about universality of language. He was right only in the sence that need for justice is universal in humans; but concepts of what deliver it are vastly different. Exactly this makes institutions like International Criminal Court or international law senseless. Every nation (may be, even every county} entitled to formulate its own notion of justice; universal jurisdiction is an empty notion.
What I see here is a wheezing and gasping jubilation by right wing USA as it nears its impending last breath. Billions will blah, blah, blah…
Isn’t it fascinating how a dictator’s hanging seems to knock away the last tenuous threads connecting the already unhinged left to reality? Here’s more delight:
I think the right will be hand deliverying Bush, Cheney and most of their cabinet to the International Criminal Court before the year is out.
Since that’ll happen about the time the left “hand-delivers” much of itself to a court of treason, btw, you maybe should start looking for a good lawyer.
I am against the death penalty on humanitarian grounds, so I was against hanging the ousted dictator, as I am against hanging two more of his accomplices in the next days. “On humanitarian grounds” basically means that the death penalty is in violation of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; furthermore killing Saddam has not yet brought his victims back to life, nor it will, so in my opinion keeping him in jail should have been sufficient.
That aside, the bootleg video with verbal abuses addressed to Saddam Hussein shows in my opinion that victims should never be active part in the due judicial process. We are all human beings, and of course we know that their attitude and reactions may be understandable That is why victims can be witnesses, but their rights and dignity must be restored by an independent court, and carrying out justice is not up to them. Therefore, stressing that the victims’ hatred coming from Hussein’s crimes somehow justifies the death penalty, or excuses the behaviour of those attending at the gallows, is not correct.
One last word on Italy’s dictator Mussolini and the way he ended his life, in comparison with Saddam Hussein’s death. Mussolini’s death was an act of war. He was captured by the Italian maquis and executed without trial, while trying to flee from Italy; his body was desecrated after his death.
Saddam Hussein’s death was not intended to be an act of war, instead. Unlike Mussolini, the Iraqi dictator did stand in trial (though in the same country where he had committed his crimes; I would have rather liked to see him in front os some United Nations’ court like Milosevic in the Hague, or like the war criminals from Rwanda), and was abused during the very process of his own execution. I am very happy that the new legitimate Iraqi authorities have opened an inquiry into the handling of the execution, and are tré¬ying to make clear who was responsible for the abuses and the leaked video.
You know, hearing “humanitarian grounds” invoked in association with a tyrant as bloody as Saddam Hussein, and deriving those grounds from “article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, is enough, as I’ve said before, to make a decent death penalty opponent reconsider. Nevertheless, having reconsidered, I remain an opponent, but one willing and able to allow for rare historical exceptions, as in the case of Saddam Hussein and his chief accomplices.
Another such exception, for example, would be Fidel Castro, who it would be good to see brought to justice before his looming natural end. Not so, on the other hand, for the left’s favorite dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who on the whole did more good than bad, and relinquished power voluntarily. He treated his political opponents badly, it’s true, and for that he should still be accountable (even though dead), but those opponents were largely a bad lot themselves, who would have done far worse had their aborted revolution been allowed to complete itself. In the Rogue’s Gallery of history, Pinochet, Castro, and Saddam represent the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, respectively.
Historical justice goes beyond legal proceedings; it is extra-judical and extra-legal by its nature. So I could not agree with Christofer Hitchens disapproval of Saddam execution. In Budapest 1956 Communist apparatchiks and secret political police officers were literally lynched by rebel mobs in Wild West style, they were hanged on lamp-posts, and I have no objection to this. The same applies to near-lynching of Chaushesqu in Romania. Such things are done not to restore justice, as in back-ally murder case, but to draw a line, to get rid of the historical epoch. It should have a flavor of carnival desacration of rejected, dismissed idols. Brutality of the act is necessary to its function of poetic justice.
Killing Saddam is not for the dead, it is for the living. The living has mattered always to true liberals. But fake liberals have cared more for the dead than they ever have for the cries of mercy and justice from the living.
Oh and BTW, your use of adjectives incorrectly is telling.
Yeah, BTW – smarten up!
“Another such exception, for example, would be Fidel Castro, who it would be good to see brought to justice before his looming natural end. Not so, on the other hand, for the left’s favorite dictator, Augusto Pinochet, who on the whole did more good than bad, and relinquished power voluntarily. He treated his political opponents badly, it’s true, and for that he should still be accountable (even though dead), but those opponents were largely a bad lot themselves, who would have done far worse had their aborted revolution been allowed to complete itself. In the Rogue’s Gallery of history, Pinochet, Castro, and Saddam represent the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, respectively.”
What exactly is Fidel’s crimes that you think he deserves the death penalty?
God, what a frikkin’ riot reading your rubbish Sally.
If the left says one thing you just go to the opposite.
Pinochet tortured thousands of people – and brutally too. And not just political opponents either. Who were the ‘bad’ lot, Sally – the poor working class who had to be tortured or brutally murdered for peaceful dissent? You don’t know anything about what your talking about. Pathetic.
And Sally – the facts are – the objective truth in terms of numbers, scale of destruction, nature of the crimes(according to international law and the UN charter) – aggression, terrorism, covert and overt destablization of democratic governments , supporting and harbouring terrorists(as in the case of latin America) – the undeniable leader is the U.S.
Thats not anti-American diatribe. And you may not like it – I don’t either.
But that is the reality.
So having established that uncontroversial truth – what punishment do you think Bush should face? – given that he is directly responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal war? Then through in the torture, secret prisons, the blatant demolition of arms treaties particularly those of the NPT; threatening other nations and being responsible for sanctions regimes against nations who are guilty of nothing except being insubordinate to U.S domination.
By your standards, Sally – Bush should be hanged.
That’s just the truth – according to your logic.
None of the cast of rouges you
If the left says one thing you just go to the opposite.
Turns out that’s actually a pretty good guide for most people — if you find yourself agreeing with anything the left asserts, you really should think again. Occasionally, of course, the left happens to say something true and/or good, but not if it can help it.
E.g. (and sorry for the ongoing distraction here, but it’s relevant in a larger sense), look at the left’s articles of faith regarding the two dictators, Castro and Pinochet. Castro is responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of anywhere between 9,000 and 90,000 of his political opponents, or of those who simply wished to be free of his communist prison. Pinochet — no angel — was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of between 3,000 and 30,000, most of whom were directly involved in fomenting a socialist/communist revolution. Castro is responsible for installing a generations-long totalitarianism with no end in sight — one that imprisons dissidents and, like all such communist paradises, has empoverished its people. Pinochet, after ending the communist threat to his own land, voluntarily relinquished power and set his country on the road to a stable democracy, wealth, and freedom. Yet it’s Castro that the left idolizes, Pinochet they demonize. See why it makes sense to take the opposite of most things that come out of the mouths of leftists?
If Jimmy Carter ever agreed with you, I call that the Kiss of Death. Which Bush experienced over the Dubai Ports. Bush had no chance to salvage anything once Carter said he agreed with Bush.
Sally, Pinochet violently overthrew an ELECTED government and the dissidents were mostly trade union leaders, teachers and leaders of peasant advocacy groups. Hardly violent revolutionaries (as opposed to some of the Venezuelan and Cubans being harboured in the US right now).
His economic policies were disastrous, despite the spin being put on them these days. Growth came after Pinochet and despite his hutting of Chilean common wealth.
Nor did he go willingly, he was an ever present threat despite his power being curbed by the Chilean elite who knew a thing or two about public opinion and labour dissatisfaction.
Justaguy:
1) So you’re a Brit…noted your spelling of “labour”.
2) “Elected Government”?!? So what…the world would have been done a favor if the German Army made a putsch and disposed Hitler in his early days as Chancellor. But that’s asking a bit too much for a cloudy crystal ball.
3) Real dictators NEVER relinquish power. Easier to have the “Chilean elite who knew a thing or two public opinion and labour (there you go again, pal) dissatisfaction.” taken out and shot, metaphorically or literally. Neater and cleaner that way, don’t yknow, old boy…
justaguy’s political beliefs are immune to reality, GOC — he just accepts anything that might confirm them, regardless how flimsy, and rejects anything that contradicts them, regardless how strong. It’s the mark of the True Believer.
There’s a lesson in this Tale of Two Dictators nevertheless. When politics becomes a real blood sport, as increasingly deranged elements of the left here and abroad seem thirsting to make it, then nice guys don’t just finish last, they finish dead. Both Castro and Pinochet understood that much at least, as opposed to the tragic, feckless Allende. Those now who think it’s such a nice idea to use any political power they may gain as a means of dragging their political enemies into kangaroo courts had best be very careful what they wish for — once you start to play that game you may wind up losing it.