I wish he’d said it sooner, but I like what he did say. In my ongoing struggle not to fall victim to ODS, I want to be sure to give credit when it’s due. Useless as the words may ultimately be, they are moving and strong and I am glad they have been said.
I agree with Mrs Whatsit, but I wish that Mr. Obama had spoken directly before a TV camera, not relayed the message in a written statement. That rather underplays it, doesn’t it?
The one thing he can probably influence is the public reaction of people around the world. He could stimulate demonstrations of support everywhere from South Africa to Chicago. This could effect the outcome without “Meddling”, if he’s smart about it.
Could it be he hasn’t thought of it?
It’s one thing not to know who Moussavi is and what his true motivations are, but we are four months into Obama’s term and we still aren’t sure who he is and why he does what he does and doesn’t do what he doesn’t do.
Here’s a Powerline piece with no less than five possible explanations for Obama’s tardy, tepid responses to Iran: Why Is Obama AWOL on Iran?
They’ve run a poll on the five possibitlies. “Obama is without a clue, and knows it” is way out in front with 39%.
huxley: Interesting point. I took a look at that poll. I think the best answer might be “all of the above.” The five responses are not mutually exclusive.
Oops, make that five months into Obama’s term…
Time sure flies when you don’t know who the president is.
I cannot escape the notion that this man is not really very smart at all. We have seen no evidence – none – of his academic performance or achievements, and in fact it has been hidden from us. He has no distinguished accomplishments as either a community organizer or as a politician, other than winning elections under . . . unusual circumstances.
He cannot talk extemporaneously; take away the teleprompter and he seems lost, hesitant, unsure of himself, not the usual characteristics of the intellectually-assured.
So he may just be who, and what, his handlers want him to be on any given occasion, and that being the case – more than a sock puppet, but not much more – we cannot look for, or expect, consistency in the White House.
Should be exciting.
He phoned it in…. Lame.
Not exactly a “tear down this wall!” moment, was it?
I have really enjoyed hearing lefties on the new channels and the intertubes acting as apologists for the Mad Mullahs.
The dirty, dirty leftists have never met a dictator they didn’t caress and fondle. Mullah-sniffers….
Yes, Nell, I agree. He should have said it, in that voice of his. I did not realize at first that he had not, and of course, it’s yet another way of detaching himself from it, of leaving room to deny. I guess he will never run out of them.
This is a foreign policy disaster. The Chosen One has no idea what to do here and has no one on his staff with the experience to give him good guidance.
I agree that he phoned this one in. There should have been a Prime Time address that spoke directly to the Iranian people.
Plan on seeing this one on the same page with The Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring and Tianimen Square.
This is defining his presidency:
Like Carter except more feckless and naive….
“Obama has searched for the right tone in light of political pressures on all sides.”
This line from neo’s link sums up Obama’s relationship with the principles of freedom and democracy.
Reagan didn’t have such problems because he had principles and he spoke from them. He called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Nonetheless he went on to successful negotiations with the Soviets, and the Soviet Union broke up shortly afterward.
Obama’s reliance on the right words and the right tone to please everyone chills me. God help us if we ever need Obama to lead us in a desperate situation, where the choices are stark and real, and the actions required involve something more than sending out predator drones or spending astronomical amounts of money.
The problem will arise when the right thing to do is not at the same time the popular thing to do. Roosevelt faced it vis a vis the Neutrality Act and support for Britain, while Reagan faced it with the Iran-contra affair. Obama is a weakling who doesn’t know what he believes until he’s told by his superiors, for whom he is the spokesmodel. He is going to make Carter looks gutsy by comparison.
What gives me hope for this situation is that the horror stories turning up do NOT seem to end with the protesters running for their lives and giving up completely. The casualties appear to stem from them continuing their resistance.
The first time a policeman raised his riot stick and stalked towards a protester, expecting him to run as usual, but the protester just stood there and looked back at him, and it was the policeman that backed down and walked away, was probably the start of a fire that has taken on a life of its’ own.
The biggest problem with being an oppressor depending on fear, is “GOD HELP YOU” if they ever STOP being afraid of you.
Yeah, the security forces are reacting, but it’s damned hard to stuff the djinni back into the bottle; ain’t it?
–
So, should we send in special American commandos to assist the resistance now? Or wait?
The Iranian people are going to wish they never told the world they wanted thier revolution to come from within, who is there to save them?
Not a very strong response by that jackass to this:
They’ve run a poll on the five possibitlies. “Obama is without a clue, and knows it” is way out in front with 39%.
Huxley,
Speaking of polls, approval ratings for Republicans hit an all-time low last week in both the New York Times/CBS News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls.
The dirty, dirty leftists have never met a dictator they didn’t caress and fondle.
Grey,
You are forgetting that it was Reagan and Thatcher who used to Pinochet, dictator of Chile. Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists.
I’d like to see an Iranian teenager with a “Mr Obama, this ain’t about your poll numbers” T-shirt on.
Orange:
“You are forgetting that it was Reagan and Thatcher who used to Pinochet, dictator of Chile. Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists”
As this is poorly written, it is difficult to discern precisely what Orange means. Here is some information on the Pinochet era (1973-1990).
I find it interesting that Orange doesn’t mention the junta in Argentina ( 1976-1983), responsible for an estimated 30,000 killed versus 3,000 for Pinochet. Thatcher’s (1979-1990) prosecution of the 1982 Falklands War, and Reagan’s (1981-1989) support of the UK in the war, were instrumental in bringing down the Argentine junta. There were considerably more democratically elected governments in Latin America when Reagan left office than when he took office.
Pinochet tried to get out of respecting the results of the 1988 referendum, in which voters were asked to decide between keeping Pinochet in power for 8 more years or holding Presidential elections. The voters decided 56-44 to hold Presidential elections. The Reagan Administration put pressure on Pinochet to respect the results.
There was considerable support in Chile for Pinochet’s 1973 coup. Three weeks before the 1973 coup, the democratically elected House of Deputies passed by 81-47 a resolution titled the “Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy.” An excerpt follows.
“5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;
6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government…
14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile’s institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development. ”
In general and in specific, the resolution could be interpreted as an invitation to a coup. Allende himself called it such. The democratically elected members of the House of Deputies would not have passed such a strongly-worded resolution by a commanding 63- 37% majority if their constituents, the Chilean people, were not also disgusted with the Allende government’s repeated violations of law and democratic procedure.
“…Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists.”
Save us all the crocodile tears, Orange. The 3,000 or so people who perished under Pinochet’s rule pale in comparison to the millions murdered under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the hundreds of thousands who died as a result of war and government-imposed starvation in communist president Mengistu Haile Mariam’s Ethiopia, and the 100,000-plus who died in North Vietnamese “reeducation” camps. And what did your precious leftists do to save any of them?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
But Obama needs the mullah regime in order to work the transformational magic of his eloquence. With wise and calming words he would sooth those savage beasts, whose fierce rancor had perplexed the entire world. But those little sh!tz in the streets have stolen his show. No wonder he’s stammering and yawping.
I don’t things will turn out well for the brave protesters, not this time. Some consolation will be if Obama receives the contempt and shame he has earned.
damage control. it just insures that the situation is ambiguous and the argument shifts to the opinion of when you should speak… not whether he spoke or not. even this late in the game he could burn the candle at both ends by making a statement after the state has had time to prepare before the people were emboldened by such a statement. it does make a difference when he says it, but to the average joe, they will not realize why.
“Better late than never?” C’mon, so Soros took the week off, probably trout fishing out of cell phone range. Destroying America is hard work. Now that Barry has been told what he thinks, he issued a statement. And so he issued a statement instead of speaking publicly. The teleprompter was in the shop. Cut him some slack.
Besides, Barry had more important things to do than pay attention to the potential distintegration of a fanatical enemy of America striving to construct nuclear weapons. You think Bo’s going to housetrain himself?
What is great is that it doesn’t matter what Obama says or doesn’t say, or what the congress does, or what the MSM decides to cover, this revolution in Iran is a completely internal affair.
Imagine if this country had an election that was obviously and crudely rigged and we woke up the next day knowing in our bones that we no longer lived in a democracy.
Would we take to the streets and demand our power back? If the government responded with force, would we meekly accept our fate and return to our homes and resume lives suddenly made smaller and more subservient?
I think that this theocracy is in it’s death spiral. It may take a while but the only way to keep power is to deny it’s citizens any of the tools of modern life – computers, telephones, faxes, email, internet, all of those things which are in abundance in Iran and without which the country cannot thrive.
This is not some backward country like Afghanistan. This is a country that is totally wired and whose children have grown up knowing what is happening in the world.
This is not just some students protesting, or some fringe peace march. This is a total split in the power structure of the country, a civil war, of sorts. Whether this war for power is waged with guns or with writs, it doesn’t matter.
Of course the most important thing is to see if the young men in the army and in the police force will be able to beat and kill their fellow citizens. These are their family members and friends.
The rumors are that many of the thugs that are attacking the demonstators are foreign, mostly Arab, mercenaries, recruits from Palestine and Lebanon. A country that must rely on foreigners to subdue it’s citizens is doomed.
Let Obama speak or not speak, he is irrelevant to this piece of history. No matter what happens, he, as head of state, will have to deal with Iran.
It’s interesting how when leftists want to criticize the right on human rights they go back to Pinochet, who ruled Chile at just about the same time Pol Pot held sway in Cambodia.
“The five responses are not mutually exclusive.”
You’ve got a good point, neo, but “clueless and knows it” is actually the last one I would have voted for. While BO and his minions are certainly clueless, the problem is he *doesn’t* know it. Their ignorance is matched only by their arrogance.
Obama made it a point to at least make an attempt to draw a line between the extremist and the moderates in side Islamic regimes, we were not clear about the distinction he was making, how he responds, whether it’s tactic silence for the right moment, as it may turn out, or coming out now and voicing support for the protesters — if the moment is not later then it is now, we’ll all be much wiser about what Obama is REALLY made of soon, we’ll at least have some indisputable evidence, as opposed to parochial mildly anecdotal subjection, he can’t puff himself up and swagger around the rising freedom movement in Iran. The survival of democracy is predicated on the crushing, swift, and humiliating defeat of fascism. I am so angry — and depressed! I want to see actionable international solidarity with reformist minded people who are brutalized and striped of dignity from repressive regimes. Times like this make me extra proud to be an American, of a greater and enduring tradition, and in a position to use great force with social justice in a globalist prospective and human liberation as our more noble and merciful endeavor, to kill fascism that prevails in our day and help individuals gain an opportunity for self responsibility and self ownership and freedom to achieve what they can of their individual dreams.
There were some pretty straight ahead statements made about Obama on Maggie’s Farm this morning. I won’t argue with any of them.
we’ll all be much wiser about what Obama is REALLY made of soon
“It doesn’t matter who wins this election. The important fact is there was a robust debate.”
“You are forgetting that it was Reagan and Thatcher who used to Pinochet, dictator of Chile. Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists.”
I approve of Pinochet’s having killed Leftists. I approve of the deposing and killing of Allende.
By the way, I was a Leftist 1977-1987, so I was not a Reagan supporter at that time.
it is about time but he needs to put his voice behind those words and get our allies to speak out moiré.
Please read my blog am new and could use help
“I approve of Pinochet’s having killed Leftists. ”
So, you block me without warning or cause, and yet you allow sympathy for the murder of innocent people for their political beliefs to be expressed on your blog?
Nice. Good to know your standards. Stay classy, doc.
Wow! Gotta say, I’m surprised that one got through.
That’s right, “Shepard.” Given what Allende and the Communists were doing to Chile, I think they got what they deserved. Look, capitalism and the West are at war with Communism. I used to be, for all practical purposes, a revisionist Marxist, so I know about Communism and Communists from long and deep experience. They are at war with our economic and political system. For trying to bring down Chile’s republic, Allende and his followers got their just deserts.
Since Marxism intends to bring us down and destroy our civilization, yes I am in favor of killing them. Because the evidence of history strongly supports the view that they are the real killers on a massive scale. And if they don’t do it through “re-education” they do it through destroying economies and bringing more people into poverty, instead of prosperity.
So, I agree with what Pinochet did. I did not used to, back when I was on the other side.
FredHjr,
You disgust me to the core of my being.
Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands. The position you take here is as un-American as one can take.
Pinochet was a dictator, a murderer, and a torturer. Oh, and he was an international terrorist, murdering a Chilean and an American in the capital of the United States of America.
Yes, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were worse. So? Being the least bad murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator in the room does not excuse one from being a murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator.
Failure to understand that one can oppose both Pinochet and other murderous tyrants is a failure of both imagination and morality.
One does not need to be “on the other side” to believe that Pinochet was a tyrant who led a regime that murdered a democratically elected president and thousands of other innocent Chileans. In a democracy, one responds to policies one does not like by contesting elections and competing in the free market place of ideas. One does not murder.
Following our previous discussion Myers and his representativeness, or lack thereof, of the mindset of all on the left of the political spectrum, can I now say that FredHjr represents some or all on the right of the political spectrum? How many agree here that political disputes in an electoral democracy should be settled through murder, torture, and terrorism?
PS – If my inability to post for the last several days was due to something other than a ban, I apologize for presuming otherwise.
Shepard: Actually, I didn’t block you. Sometimes my spam filter shuts out people—even regular commenters here—for no reason. I haven’t yet figured out why. Usually it’s temporary, and they find that in a day or so they have no trouble getting back in and commenting.
That said, it’s interesting to me that you thought I had blocked you and yet you managed to come back with a new IP number. This is sometimes (although not always) an indication of a troll.
And by the way, I have a very liberal (pardon the pun) comments policy here. But I also reserve the right to ban anyone I wish to, for any reason, at any time, with no notice whatsoever. I try to do so only for good cause, however (see this for a further explanation).
As I said, I apologize.
I use proxies. I recommend everyone does on the internet. Too many lives can be ruined too easily by online nutjobs.
“I have a very liberal (pardon the pun) comments policy here.”
Apparently:
“I approve of Pinochet’s having killed Leftists.”
Anyway, to get back on the topic of this thread…
It appears that most people commenting here agree that Obama’s response to the crisis in Iran has been lackluster, at best, and a total failure at worst. This failure has been ascribed to his stupidity and other personal failings.
I’d like to make the argument now, to which you may not have been exposed, that Obama’s policy has both been very smart and exactly what he should be doing.
The protesters cannot change the Iranian system through coercive force. The regime holds extensive coercive power, while the protesters do not. If the regime decides to crush the protesters with force, and the security forces obey their orders, the protesters will be killed and the protests crushed.
The nonviolence advocated by Gandhi and so far followed by the protesters works when they convince people with access to coercive power not to use it. Chances are, they’re not going to convince the regime itself to dissolve or reform significantly. This leaves the only possible avenue of change up to the security forces themselves.
Sometimes, security forces crack down. This is what happened in China in 1981. Sometimes, security forces sit back and don’t intervene. Sometimes, security forces join the protesters against the regime.
These latter two are, of course, what we’d like to see happen, right?
So the question is one of how best to achieve this. Some people advocate vocal support for the protesters and a condemnation of the fraudulent election. This is, after all, exactly what the regime has accused us of doing, right? We might as well do it, since we’re already being accused of it, right?
Wrong. The regime is accusing the U.S. of meddling because it thinks this will be an effective way of maintaining its rule. If the security forces believe the protesters have legitimate grievances, or if they believe that they should not be in the business of cracking the skulls of their countrymen and -women, the regime loses. It wants the security forces, the pivot point, to believe that the protests are illegitimate. One way of achieving this, in a country with a long history of foreign meddling in its internal affairs, is to convince the security forces that the protesters are part of a foreign conspiracy to control Iran.
The beliefs of the security forces, in Clausewitzian terms, are the regime’s center of gravity.
The more we appear to be taking sides, meddling, intervening, influencing, bankrolling, stirring up, agitating, or controlling, the less legitimate the protesters appear to be. The less legitimate the protesters appear to be, the more likely their skulls will be cracked.
Obama, I believe, understands all this and has chosen his response very carefully and very well. The more we stand apart from the protests, beyond what Obama has already said, the better the chances of real change happening.
The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world’s most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts.
The monitoring capability was provided, at least in part, by a joint venture of Siemens AG, the German conglomerate, and Nokia Corp., the Finnish cellphone company, in the second half of 2008, Ben Roome, a spokesman for the joint venture, confirmed.
“”Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands. The position you take here is as un-American as one can take.
Shepard””
How does this myth keep getting embedded in the liberal mind? For Gods sake man. There wouldn’t even be an America if this were true.
Sheppard, if there was somebody who’d magically appeared to kill democratically elected Hitler before he put his plans to practice, the world would be a better place.
Note, everyone: with an expert sleight of hands Shepperd turned approval of killing of leftists (active professional revolutionaries) into advocating murder of innocent people.
Are you training for a persecutor in “hate speech” trials, Sheppard?
Sorry for misspelling; please substitute Sheppard with Shepard.
sheppard is a troll, from his using proxies and attempting to get around a ban he expected, to saying he wanted to see how high he could get my blood pressure, and on and on…
now that we have that straight, anyone know where the chip dip and beer is?
The point, as Shep is anxious to avoid, is not that some guy was worse than some other guy.
It is not a matter of “tu quoque”.
It’s that if you were not outraged at the atrocities of the left, your outrage at the atrocities of the right are not a matter of principle–which Shep pretends–but of partisan hackery.
“Are you training for a persecutor in “hate speech” trials, Sheppard?”
As I understand it, we don’t have hate speech trials in this country.
If you are referring to hate crimes legislation, which as I understand it often gets confused with hate speech legislation, we can have that separate conversation.
“How does this myth keep getting embedded in the liberal mind? For Gods sake man. There wouldn’t even be an America if this were true.”
You are, I think, mixing up a revolution against a king, who by definition was not a democratically elected leader, and a parliament that was unrepresentative of the thirteen colonies with murdering a democratically elected president.
“Sheppard, if there was somebody who’d magically appeared to kill democratically elected Hitler before he put his plans to practice, the world would be a better place.”
This is a fair point, but I’d like to refer back to my previous point: Hitler was an extreme outlier in most ways. It’s not really smart to use the most extreme situation possible to justify extreme responses. “I have the sniffles. It might be cancer. Better start amputation and chemo.”
More importantly, Hitler was never democratically elected. The Nazi Party controlled a plurality, not a majority, of seats in the Reichstag, and Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg at Papen’s urging.
So, the analogy doesn’t work for two very good reasons.
The reason why I am not opposed to the Pinochet coup against Allende’s Communist government is because Allende ran in an election as someone he was not, and he was ramming through socialist policies which the legislature in Chile became opposed to. You have a Communist revolutionary who misrepresented himself, because he knew if he was open about the fact that he was a Marxist-Leninist he would never have been elected.
“Shepard” may piss and moan about my brutality and the odiousness of my views, and about how I would condone the murder of people I am politically opposed to. But the fact of the matter is that running as a stealth candidate, as Allende did, even if “democratically elected,” amounts to a theft. Deceiving the people and then attempting to overthrow the existing economic and political order is treason in any society. Traitors who are this large often merit the gallows or the wall.
Allende was the point man in a stealthy and massive attempt to take over a society that already had a republic. It tied right back to the Soviet Union by way of Cuba. And the people working with Allende were foot soldiers in this annexation and fraud. I deplore the executions of truly innocent people (and there were those, of that we have no doubt), but most of the people swept up by Pinochet’s coup were in fact foot soldiers for the Communists. They were more than mere “political opponents.” They were acting as revolutionary insurgents for a foreign power, employing whatever degree of stealth and deception they required to fulfill their missions. They were caught and they were killed.
The Pinochet regime hung on to power much longer than was necessary, but did relinquish power eventually. Today, Chile is a democratic government and a prosperous society. It is perhaps the most prosperous country in South America because capitalism was preserved and Communism’s inroads into Chile uprooted and burned.
Your side lost, “Shepard.” Get over it. And now in this country a stealth election and candidate is in the process of being outed. Hopefully, we will have the good sense to boot them out of office, in stages, beginning in 2010.
“It’s that if you were not outraged at the atrocities of the left, your outrage at the atrocities of the right are not a matter of principle—which Shep pretends—but of partisan hackery.”
This is interesting. You have nothing by which to judge my attitude toward anything other than the words I have written here.
Just for the record, I am appalled by, and condemn to the utmost of my being each and every tyrant, dictator, autocrat, and genocide.
Now, even if you assume – which you likely will – that I am lying, you have an example here in this forum of a conservative who not only fails to condemn a murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator, but actually voices support for a murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator.
It would seem that if you actually cared about chastising people for their failure to condemn vociferously enough a tyrant, as opposed to (ahem) scoring cheap partisan points, you might say something about that first.
“The Pinochet regime hung on to power much longer than was necessary, but did relinquish power eventually. Today, Chile is a democratic government and a prosperous society.”
As is Germany, but one does not use this datum to justify Hitler.
This is what I was really interested in:
“ut the fact of the matter is that running as a stealth candidate, as Allende did, even if “democratically elected,” amounts to a theft. Deceiving the people and then attempting to overthrow the existing economic and political order is treason in any society. Traitors who are this large often merit the gallows or the wall.”
So you have established what exactly you think legitimates political violence against a democratically elected president: their “stealthiness,” for shorthand.
You then make another very interesting point:
“And now in this country a stealth election and candidate is in the process of being outed.”
So, having established that you believe “stealthiness” legitimates political violence, including murder (of which you heartily approve!), you then define this country as being lead by a “stealthy” party. We’re talking about Obama and the Democrats in Congress, right?
Do you think that, just as Allende’s murder was legitimate and good, the murder of Obama would also be legitimate and good?
Or are there degrees of stealthiness?
Also, something I’ve never understood very well is how the political right in the United States, which has now for a number of years appropriated for itself the mantle of the vanguard of all things freedom, liberty, and democracy, can be sympathetic at all, to any degree, to any dictator, tyrant, or autocrat, even one who was sympathetic to free market economics.
It sort of calls into question your whole dedication to principles and what-not.
‘Your side lost, “Shepard.”’
I’m not sure why my name warrants ironic quotes, but ok.
But, I think it’s really interesting that you understand things through the lens of games: sides, winning and losing, and so forth. That’s all it really is for you, isn’t it?
But, going back to the original point of this post (stop trying to get me off topic! who’s paying to to derail this thread???), I think Obama has handled the Iranian crisis very well.
Shepard,
The application of the Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” does not work on me. You need to go back to your Kommissar for consultation in order to find another angle of approach.
And I did not call for a violent overthrow of president Obama’s regime. All I said was that he was a magnificent stealth candidate, and that the layers are now being pulled back and his poll numbers are starting to crumble. Polling done that focuses on the actual policies and program proposals show weak support for them. Eventually his personal popularity will fall, as the rotten edifice underneath falls.
I don’t know what country you are from, but just to inform you that in the U.S. we will have congressional elections in November of 2010, and then congressional and presidential elections in 2012. I expect the president and his supporters will be losing their offices in stages over the course of those two elections.
That will be quite an achievement, since our media is overwhelmingly advocating Obama and the socialists. The education system has been seeding the ground for decades. Despite all of this, reality is crashing the socialists. Americans may be fooled by stealth candidates, but most of them are not fools and eventually the “get it.” It happened back in 1976-1980. Carter was a stealth candidate, and eventually his Left policies crashed and burned. Same is happening today. Two generations of Americans, Generations X and Y, were either not around back then or were just kids, and did not know of or understand what was happening. Well, they are getting the lesson now. I think a lot of them will vote differently going forward.
“Just for the record, I am appalled by, and condemn to the utmost of my being each and every tyrant, dictator, autocrat, and genocide”.
Does that include Castro, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, and every other left-wing tyrant who promised to usher in the “new communist man”, making that omelet by “breaking a few eggs”? If so, good on you. You’re one of the few. And BTW, why does your side only speak out against the Pinochets, Mobutus, and Suhartos of the world when the number of people they kill is–in general, not always–comparatively small when compared with the dictators of the left?
For the record, I don’t like dictators of any type, whether ultra-nationalists like Suharto, kleptocrats like Marcos, or communists like Castro. They all abuse the rights of their own people, usurp the people’s prerogatives, and invariably destroy their own countries’ economies.
“The application of the Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” does not work on me.”
That’s good to know, if I were ever tempted to read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and attempt to apply them on you. Beyond this, your assumption that disagreement with you implies a conspiracy of radicals learning rules to use against their political foes is both a little nuts and a stark illustration of the term hubris.
“I did not call for a violent overthrow of president Obama’s regime.”
You never actually came out and said it, which is why I asked you to clarify.
“All I said was that he was a magnificent stealth candidate, and that the layers are now being pulled back and his poll numbers are starting to crumble.”
Well, that’s not all you said. I will paraphrase: you said that the murder of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was legitimate and good because Allende had been a stealth candidate.
You then describe Obama as a stealth candidate.
All I did was wonder if this means that you believe the murder of the democratically elected president of the United States, Barack Obama, would also be legitimate and good.
If not, I wonder why.
“I don’t know what country you are from, but just to inform you that in the U.S. we will have congressional elections in November of 2010, and then congressional and presidential elections in 2012.”
I’m from the U.S. and, as I’ve established, I’m a better American than you.
“I expect the president and his supporters will be losing their offices in stages over the course of those two elections.”
Yes, this is what we do in liberal democracies where we respect the rule of law: when we don’t like our elected officials’ policies, we vote them out of office at the next election. We do not murder them.
“That will be quite an achievement, since our media is overwhelmingly advocating Obama and the socialists.”
As far as I can tell, the “media” are not advocating any socialists because there are no socialists of note for whom to advocate.
Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands.
Contrast that strong statement with:
“It doesn’t matter who wins this election. What’s important is the fact there was a robust debate.”
“Does that include Castro, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, and every other left-wing tyrant.”
Yes. I made no qualifications.
“You’re one of the few.”
This is absurd beyond belief. The political right does not own distaste for dictatorship. That is an American sensibility. I do not assume that because FredHjr, a conservative, has openly indicated his support for a murdering, torturing, terrorist dictator, that all conservatives do. I believe he is something of an outlier. Why? Because I believe the American people, of all political stripes, are good. I’m not sure why you don’t. But to believe that people on the left of the political spectrum in this country are not appalled by dictators, even leftist dictators, in this day and age requires a willful ignorance.
“And BTW, why does your side only speak out against the Pinochets, Mobutus, and Suhartos of the world when the number of people they kill is—in general, not always—comparatively small when compared with the dictators of the left?”
This is part of the problem here – your need to rank dictators by their horribleness so as to make sure that no really bad dictators are on “your side,” that all the really nasty ones are on “my side.” We’re both (I assume) Americans. Therefore, we can say with great certainty, that no dictator is on our side. By this I mean that the vast majority of political debate in this country, no matter how nasty or alienating it might seem to people engaged in it, takes place within a framework that assumes liberal democracy, free markets, and individual rights are the best. We’re debating over the details, no matter how much you want to deny this. The politics of dictatorship are so far from the politics of Democrats and Republicans that we cannot talk in any meaningful way about dictators being on either “side.”
FredHjr claiming Pinochet for the right aside, of course.
The politics of dictatorship are so far from the politics of Democrats and Republicans that we cannot talk in any meaningful way about dictators being on either “side.”
“It doesn’t matter who wins this election. The important fact is there was a robust debate.”
Gray,
Thanks for putting the thread back on track. What’s with these people trying so hard to derail it? We can agree 100% that they’re paid agents, for that’s the only logical explanation.
Anyway, please see my comment above. I think Obama’s near total lack of any public statement on Iran has both been calculated and the best possible policy he can pursue.
Anyway, please see my comment above. I think Obama’s near total lack of any public statement on Iran has both been calculated and the best possible policy he can pursue.
Yeah…. He’s doing to Iran what Kennedy did to Cuba. At least he didn’t encourage them and then sit on his hands like Papa Bush did to the Kurds.
It makes me feel queasy to see an American President not even willing to pay lip service to democratic ideals and basic human rights.
So he phoned in a tepid and feckless response which signalled to the Mullah’s that we just don’t give a shit if they kill every last man woman and child protestor so long as there was a “robust debate”.
‘So he phoned in a tepid and feckless response which signalled to the Mullah’s that we just don’t give a shit if they kill every last man woman and child protestor so long as there was a “robust debate”.’
Did you read my comment above? I believe Obama is doing what he’s doing exactly because it is the best path to minimizing deaths among the protesters and maximizing political change.
I believe Obama is doing what he’s doing exactly because it is the best path to minimizing deaths among the protesters and maximizing political change.
I believe that is exactly what Obama believed: “If we don’t provoke the dictator, maybe he will play nice.”
It didn’t work. It was feckless and tepid. This is a foreign policy disaster.
Obama Prevaricated and People were Exterminated.
Shep, I happen to agree with you that all dictators are “anti-American”, and I don’t particularly want any of them on my side, nor do I wish to be on theirs. But if you’re going to call me out on Pinochet, then you better believe I’m going to call you out on Castro. It’s not simply to say one is worse than the other. I wouldn’t want to live under either of them, but here’s where I see the inconsistency. The left called Pinochet a usurper, war criminal, and human rights abuser, and called for his overthrow, arrest, trial, and imprisonment. I fail to see the same demands made of Castro, whose human rights record over time is arguably far worse than Pinochet’s. The left may sometimes mildly rebuke him for locking up dissidents, but there are no calls for his ouster and appearance before the bar of justice. This double standard forces me to conclude that many on the in fact left approve of what Castro is doing.
last sentence above should read:
“This double standard forces me to conclude that many on the left in fact approve of what Castro is doing”.
“But if you’re going to call me out on Pinochet, then you better believe I’m going to call you out on Castro.”
The fundamental difference here is that FredHjr actually believes Pinochet was good and legitimate. It’s not like I said “Pinochet belongs to American conservatives and American liberals wear virginal white.” I don’t believe Pinochet belongs to the American right, but at least one member of the American right does believe so.
“The left called Pinochet a usurper, war criminal, and human rights abuser, and called for his overthrow, arrest, trial, and imprisonment. I fail to see the same demands made of Castro”
Minus, of course, a number of attempts to assassinate or overthrow Castro (all bungling failures, but attempts nonetheless) by a Democratic president.
“his double standard forces me to conclude that many on the in fact left approve of what Castro is doing.”
Again, you’re forced to infer. I’m not forced to infer; FredHjr just told me! That’s the difference here. Don’t talk to me about Castro, talk to him about Pinochet.
“The left may sometimes mildly rebuke him for locking up dissidents, but there are no calls for his ouster and appearance before the bar of justice.”
That may be because the left, with a sense of humility, understands that “calls for ouster” of various dictators are tremendously costly with a moderate chance of success at best.
“The left called Pinochet a usurper, war criminal, and human rights abuser, and called for his overthrow.”
Maybe the Chileans called for his overthrow, but I’m not aware of calls from Americans for his overthrow (though I’d be interested to learn about them if there were).
I think the key here is: you are trying to compare calls from Chileans for Pinochet’s overthrow with the absence of calls from Americans for Castro’s overthrow. Apples and oranges.
“This double standard forces me to conclude that many on the left in fact approve of what Castro is doing”.
So if the absence of criticism for a dictator indicates support, does the presence of praise for a dictator indicate support AND a man crush?
“Obama Prevaricated and People were Exterminated.”
I’m not sure if the dozens of people murdered by the Iranian regime have been “exterminated,” a term that is often (though, in my opinion, distastefully) applied to the victims of the Holocaust.
More importantly, what exactly do you believe Obama could have said or done, over the last two weeks, that would have stopped the Iranian regime from killing those people?
I’m not sure if the dozens of people murdered by the Iranian regime have been “exterminated,”
No, of course you’re not….
More importantly, what exactly do you believe Obama could have said or done, over the last two weeks, that would have stopped the Iranian regime from killing those people?
Probably nothing he said or did could have stopped it now, but his feckless and tepid response could have at least avoided a foreign policy disaster.
Did Reagan’s demand “Tear down this wall!” stop people from being killed? Yes, in the long term….
As you said: Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands.
I wish, for our country’s sake, and its moral standing that Obama could at least have said that.
I see we’ve been assigned a new resident apparatchik. Say “hey” to Dan and Rahm for us, will ya? Thanks.
More importantly, what exactly do you believe Obama could have said or done, over the last two weeks, that would have stopped the Iranian regime from killing those people?
Contrast Lech Walesa’s characterization of Reagan.
Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend. His policy of aiding democratic movements in Central and Eastern Europe in the dark days of the Cold War meant a lot to us. We knew he believed in a few simple principles such as human rights, democracy and civil society. He was someone who was convinced that the citizen is not for the state, but vice-versa, and that freedom is an innate right.
Do you think any Iranians are going to be lauding Obama like this, now or ever?
No. Of course not. He’s too busy eating ice cream.
Like many on the left, Shepard uses Allende and Chile as a straw man in arguments with only a minimal knowledge of Chile. I once believed as Shepard did on Chile, until I thoroughly researched the subject in both English and Spanish sources.
Shepard shouts his ignorance about Chile.
One does not need to be “on the other side” to believe that Pinochet was a tyrant who led a regime that murdered a democratically elected president and thousands of other innocent Chileans.
Let us parse this statement. Yes, Pinochet was a tyrant. Some of those whom his regime killed were innocent; others were combatants. For respective percentages of innocents/combatants, compare what occurred in Argentina. Pinochet was also a tyrant who respected the results of the 1988 Referendum.
“Democratically elected” is the mantra that the left applies to Allende while the left simultaneously ignores the violations of law and democratic procedure which led the also “democratically elected” House of Deputies to pass the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. See my previous posting. That Shepard talks about “democratically elected” Allende without reference to the conduct of Allende and his allies shows that Shepard is either woefully ignorant of what occurred in Chile, or he knows the material and is being deceitful by not presenting it. My assumption is that it is ignorance that motivates Shepard in this case. Here is another example of his ignorance.
The evidence that Allende killed himself is so strong that even Monthly Review, which nobody has ever mistaken for a right-wing publication, states that Allende killed himself. (1)
The Spanish text on the left is the transcript of the last radio broadcast of Chilean President Salvador Allende, made on 11 September 1973, at 9:10 AM, before he killed himself during the US-backed coup that had Augusto Pinochet overthrow his socialist government.
The evidence that Allende killed himself is so strong that even his daughter Isabel says her father killed himself (2). She reiterated this last year (3).
In Valparaiso, Chile’s Congress on Wednesday paid its first homage to Allende, a career legislator and a socialist who was narrowly elected president on Sept. 4, 1970. His daughter Isabel presides over Chile’s lower house of Congress….
Only last month his daughter confirmed what historians had long contended: that her father committed suicide as Pinochet’s forces approached the palace, using a rifle that his friend, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, had given him.
In an interview in El Mercurio, where Isabel Allende states that her father killed herself , she adds a telling detail about her father’s viewpoint. (4)
El siempre decéa yo no seré jamé¡s como esos presidentes que salen al exilio arrancando, poco menos que en pijama, que toman el primer avié³n y se refugian afuera.
He always said I will never be like those presidents who leave for exile, kicked out of the country in their pajamas, who take the first plane out and live in refuge outside the county. (my translation)
Shepard, my unsolicited advice is that if you are so concerned about Chile, then show your concern by taking the time to learn about Chile. Get thee to a library.Your statements show that you are woefully ignorant about Chile.
I will say no more on Allende. I am not interested in a debate with an ignoramus. While Allende is off-topic, I thought that others should be aware of Shepard’s ignorance about Chile.
Sorry, that should have read “Dave,” not “Dan.” But you knew who I meant. Whoever signs the checks.
“No, of course you’re not….”
This is about terminology, not whether innocent people have been murdered. That you insinuate otherwise indicates either that you have not been able to comprehend the simple words I have written, or that you know otherwise and still feel the need to act disingenuously, as if I am in any way sympathetic to the Iranian regime.
“I wish, for our country’s sake, and its moral standing that Obama could at least have said that.”
And I have argued that saying that or anything else like this has a very good chance in resulting in more dead people. The year is 2009, not 1989, and the country is Iran, and not a communist satellite in Eastern Europe. The communist states of eastern Europe had no history of U.S. interference in their internal affairs and the security forces of those countries had no reason to believe that popular protests were the illegitimate products of foreign interference.
Iranians have that experience. Obama is walking a careful line, I believe, with the intention of not giving the Iranian security forces reason to believe that their country is again being manipulated by foreign powers.
In any event, you can find it by Googling the Isabel Allende quote in Spanish
His policy of aiding democratic movements in The Middle East in the dark days of the War on Terror meant a lot to us.
Will anyone ever say, or even think this of Obama?
Hahahahahaha! The question answers itself…..
No, Obama and his believers are toadies to Power and the Mullahs are so very powerful.
as if I am in any way sympathetic to the Iranian regime.
The communist states of eastern Europe had no history of U.S. interference in their internal affairs and the security forces of those countries had no reason to believe that popular protests were the illegitimate products of foreign interference.
Well, in sympathy to the Iranian regime, you certainly wouldn’t want to “interfere” “illegitimately” in their extermination of a democratic movement, or in their pursuit of nuclear weapons….
“Do you think any Iranians are going to be lauding Obama like this, now or ever?”
I don’t care if they laud him, and I don’t think Obama cares either. If all Obama cared about was his vanity, vice actually saving lives, he could go on TV for twenty-four hours a day, as McCain and you would have him do, and blather on and on and on and on and on, all the while accomplishing nothing but delegitimating the protests. That he’s not, when it would cost him personally nothing but time, indicates that he cares about more than appearances, unlike you.
“No. Of course not. He’s too busy eating ice cream.”
This is an interesting meme being passed around on the right. Are presidents to do nothing human while tyranny exists in the world? If not, were you complaining while Bush cleared brush while tyranny existed in…Iran?
To all (the Americans, anyway – Shepard can ignore this one) I’m reading Whittaker Chambers’ Witness now, which for some reason I’d never read before.
This book from almost 60 years ago describes in chilling detail the agitation by the Communist Party, chilling because their use of the same methods today is glaringly apparent.
So, yes, I do believe that there is a conspiracy of radicals.
Gringo,
That you feel the need to apologize for a dictatorship says all I need to know about. Fortunately, I understand that you do not represent all on the political right, though this makes two people so far on this thread who have defended a murdering, torturing, terrorist dictator.
“To all (the Americans, anyway – Shepard can ignore this one) I’m reading Whittaker Chambers’ Witness now, which for some reason I’d never read before.”
LOL. Is this supposed to make me sad =( ?
‘Well, in sympathy to the Iranian regime, you certainly wouldn’t want to “interfere” “illegitimately” in their extermination of a democratic movement, or in their pursuit of nuclear weapons….’
I’m going to assume that you simply haven’t read my post, and not that you have reading comprehension problems.
As I have stated, the regime’s center of gravity consists of the beliefs of the security forces about the legitimacy of the protests. If they believe they are illegitimate – for example, if they believe the protests are the result of foreign interference – they are more likely to crack down and protect the regime. If they believe they are legitimate, they are more likely to let them protest or, better yet, join in. My beliefs, or your beliefs, about the legitimacy of the protests is 100% irrelevant. The most important thing is whether the security forces believe they are legitimate or illegitimate, domestic or foreign. I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this.
To suggest anything else is to either grossly misunderstand or mischaracterize what I have written. I’m not sure which is worse.
Obama is walking a careful line, I believe, with the intention of not giving the Iranian security forces reason to believe that their country is again being manipulated by foreign powers.
In blind hope that they will kill less people. Oh, wait…. nevermind….
Yeah–just as I said: feckless. How did you ever think that weakness and fecklessness is a virtue that will be rewarded?
“But you can’t kill all those people, I ‘walked a fine line’. I talked about ‘robust debate’. I talked about ‘not meddling’….”
Yet they are just as many, and just as dead. At least when they died, Obama reassured them that their children will still remain shackled with no “illegitimate interference” from us.
‘My beliefs, or your beliefs, about the legitimacy of the protests is 100% irrelevant.’
Sorry, that should be “are 100% irrelevant.”
I don’t care if they laud him, and I don’t think Obama cares either.
He’s just got to keep the Politburo happy. The masses don’t count.
If all Obama cared about was his vanity,
Good point. Obama is well-known for his modesty and self-effacement.
Are presidents to do nothing human while tyranny exists in the world? If not, were you complaining while Bush cleared brush while tyranny existed in…Iran?
Comrade, thanks for the agitprop. The point for those comrades who (willfully) missed it, is that there is now — for the first time — an opportunity to change things in Iran. It didn’t exist before, but this ACORNed election, and the protests it engendered, have grievously damaged the regime.
You communists excoriated Bush for reading My Pet Goat for several minutes after learning of 9/11, taking a moment to ponder instead of jumping up and running down the hall shrieking “We’re f!#%$%%ed!” But the Messiah takes two weeks before being informed by higher authority what he thinks about a momentous world event, then issues a feckless and limp written statement, and that is wise leadership. Right. Put it in the context you can relate to: would Lenin have done that? Would Stalin? No.
‘In blind hope that they will kill less people. Oh, wait…. nevermind….’
Yes. Right now, the regime is trying really, really hard to convince the security forces that the protests are the product of foreign imperialist interference. Really, really hard. And you’re suggesting that we do exactly what the Iranian government would love for us to do: tell the security forces that yes, we are totally on the side of the protesters.
This would be a disaster.
“Yet they are just as many, and just as dead.”
This is, I think, a possible moment of insight. We have very little we can do to influence events in Iran. There are just as many dead as there would be if Obama had said anything more forceful. In fact, the most influence we can have is highly negative, if we come out in support of the protests and on the side of their political demands.
‘At least when they died, Obama reassured them that their children will still remain shackled with no “illegitimate interference” from us.’
Obama’s lack of speech is not directed either at the protesters or the regime. It is directed at the security forces who can be persuaded either to fight, ignore, or support the protests.
Reagan is lauded today by Eastern Europeans for his statemenship. Obama just got his 3 am call, and voted “present.”
Future generations of Iranians will spit on Obama’s grave, probably alongside future generations of Americans.
“You communists excoriated Bush…”
I’m sorry, you must either not understand the word “communist” or have mistaken me for someone else.
The most important thing is whether the security forces believe they are legitimate or illegitimate, domestic or foreign. I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this.
You are a naif.
I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this:
The Security Forces don’t even think like that.
They aren’t Iranian, they are shipped-in Arabs and will kill anyone to avoid having the guns turned on themselves and their families legitimately or illegitimately.
They don’t care about any ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ nonsense. That’s why they joined the security forces of a repressive regime; torturing and killing! They can’t be reasoned with, negotiated with or appealed to, they can only be defeated or destroyed.
“But the Messiah takes two weeks before being informed by higher authority what he thinks about a momentous world event, then issues a feckless and limp written statement, and that is wise leadership. Right.”
Wait, are we liberals communists or Jews waiting for our Messiah? Or do you, like Hitler, believe the two are synonymous?
But yes, I think this was wise leadership. I think what he’s doing is designed to achieve what you would like to see, namely, political change in Iran, except that unlike your proposals, his will actually work.
Again, no matter how much you deny it, the debate among Americans overwhelmingly takes place within a consensus. We both want to see the same thing happen, but disagree about how to get there. Denying the shared American-ness (and humanity) of people with whom you disagree politically will get you nothing.
I’m sorry, you must either not understand the word “communist” or have mistaken me for someone else.
Neither is the case.
“They aren’t Iranian, they are shipped-in Arabs and will kill anyone to avoid having the guns turned on themselves and their families legitimately or illegitimately.”
This is a bit silly. There have been no confirmed reports of foreigners acting against the protesters. I tend to think this particular idea stems from a misunderstanding: Ansar-e Hizbollah has a name that sounds a lot like (Lebanese Arab) Hizbollah, but is in fact Iranian.
The Iranian regime has lots and lots of security forces: the regular armed forces, the IRGC, the Qods force, the Basij, and so forth. It has no reason to rely on foreigners…
…unless, of course, it has reason to doubt the loyalty of the security forces. Maybe, I wonder, because the security forces are reluctant to crack down on their countrymen and -women’s legitimate protests?
“Neither is the case.”
Then, please, for the benefit of all readers, please describe how you came to the conclusion that, contrary to reality, I am a communist?
“That’s why they joined the security forces of a repressive regime; torturing and killing! They can’t be reasoned with, negotiated with or appealed to, they can only be defeated or destroyed.”
Actually, I was under the impression that people join the security forces of any state for pretty much the same reason: patriotism, a pay check, a sense of responsibility and duty, etc. Obviously, there are outliers in every security apparatus – people who are sadists, etc. But, for the most part, they’re not any different from soldiers and police in any country.
Otherwise, why did we make such a show of telling the Iraqi armed forces that we were there to destroy the regime, not them?
Now, obviously the security forces contain some real ideologues. The Qods force, in particular, should be understood as die-hard regime supporters. They number, however, only a few thousand. The majority of the army are not ideologues. Even the IRGC, composed mainly of conscripts, voted overwhelmingly for Khatami in the last election, not Ahmadinejad.
Contra your assertion, most human beings can be reasoned with.
Shepard wrote, “but disagree about how to get there.”
Strength vs. Appeasment on national security.
Personal responsibility vs. lack of it when it comes to personal choices
Rule of law vs. mob mentality
Right vs. left
How to get there? You get there by making well-informed decisions. The left doesn’t. In once was a member of the left pre-1991. I know.
“Reagan is lauded today by Eastern Europeans for his statemenship.”
And Clinton is lauded by Bosnians and Albanians. Neither was a very good president. Lesson: being lauded by people does not a good president make.
Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, I’m thinking…duck.
“Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, I’m thinking…duck.”
No, I’m really curious. Please explain my metaphorical communist looks, waddles, and quacks.
Looks like a pig, rolls around in the slop like a pig, oinks like a pig, I’m thinking… pig 😉
“Rule of law vs. mob mentality
Right vs. left ”
This one I especially like. You have at least one example in this thread of a conservative who believes that the murder of democratically elected presidents is legitimate, and yet you place rule of law squarely on the side of the right.
I wonder if you shouldn’t be focusing your ire on the conservative who actually shat all over the rule of law?
Shep,
This issue is not you. You want to make it about you.
The issue is appeasment and lack of strength in national security issues.
Obama is weak. He is weak on economic literacy. He is weak with his views on national security. He is weakening this nation.
It’s not about you.
“Looks like a pig, rolls around in the slop like a pig, oinks like a pig, I’m thinking… pig”
Goodness, the level of discourse here reaches ever greater heights of politeness and eloquence!
“It’s not about you.”
I never said it was. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite:
That Obama, far wiser than any of you, understands exactly that his most important audience is the Iranian security forces and, abandoning the chance to score cheap political points at home, has stayed mum precisely to save lives and promote political change in Iran.
Shep does the dance by saying, “This one I especially like. You have at least one example in this thread of a conservative who believes that the murder of democratically elected presidents is legitimate”
It’s not about you or any commenter here.
It’s about Obama. Not Obama vs. the commenter here.
The rule of law didn’t matter when it came to Acorn, the process for bankruptcy’s, the tax cheats, going back on a campaign pledge to McCain, etc.
Using the broad brush on the right with a commenter can only be your style.
Stick to the Democrat leadership – Barney, Dodd, Obama, Clinton’s, etc.
If we know about a conservative “leader” actually having done wrong (not just accused of it) we take care of our own and ask them to step aside.
Do you?
Rule of law.
Felons voting.
Illegal aliens voting.
Throwing out military votes and absentee ballots etc.
Shep funnily wrote, “That Obama, far wiser than any of you,”
No.
He is an economic illiterate. Period.
He is weak on national security. Georgia, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, G’tmo, Miranda rights for … bleh
I know the liberal dance well. Move the conversation. I don’t play that.
Ok. Let’s try this another way.
Convince me, not as a foe but as a fellow American who you’d like to win over to your (dwindling) political coalition that your side is right and mine is wrong.
PS – I think a problem here is the confusion of political coalitions (which necessarily entail many and huge compromises between interest groups and diverse constituencies) with political identity.
The Democratic and Republican parties as they exist today are historical contingencies, the product of thousands upon thousands of compromises over centuries, not self-evident or natural expressions of political identity. Confusing the odd mix of positions and policies held by each party in a first past the post system with identity (ie, “strength” versus “weakness” or “rule of law” versus “mob rule”) is a fundamental though understandable error.
Quack.
I’ll characterize as I see it. I’ve been on both sides.
Truth hurts I know.
When I was exposed to an alternative viewpoint in 1991, I went to the library 3 times a week to figure out what was what.
It is my strongly held belief that Obama delayed and hoped that the protests would fizzle.
It is my belief Obama is weak on national security with the evidence of all of his ACTIONS.
His interests are not America’s interests. He weakens us and thinks he can appease and negotiate with mad men.
I’m pretty sure that the candidate Mousavi approves of Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program. What we Westerners seem to not understand is that every candidate who stands for office has already been vetted by the Mullahs. There is no genuine opposition in Iran.
This is what most frustrates me when I read articles and comments about the internal dynamics of Iran right now. It’s a stacked deck. The people protesting for Mousavi think he’s an opponent of the regime, but he’s really, pardon my liberal use of that term today on this thread, A STEALTH CANDIDATE.
Fred wrote, “It’s a stacked deck.”
So true.
“Quack.”
That’s what your argument boils down to?
“went to the library 3 times a week”
Three whole times a week?
“The people protesting for Mousavi think he’s an opponent of the regime, but he’s really, pardon my liberal use of that term today on this thread, A STEALTH CANDIDATE.”
I think the protests have, from the start, been ahead of Mousavi. That is, I get the sense that Mousavi now serves more as a rallying point for the protesters than he does as their leader.
Quack quack.
“Quack quack.”
Ever more eloquent.
Shep wrote, “Three whole times a week?”
for a full year. Had a core belief change.
My method?
Strength, personal resonsibility, rule of law, facts and figures and history vs. the previous method of liberalism. 😉
Quack quack quack, comrade.
What I think would really be wondeful is if you only ever responded to other comments as a duck would, be quacking.
It would be a delightful performance art piece, I think.
And… I will not waste my time anymore with a commenter who believes Obama is any smarter than I…
Later! Come back with reason and facts and logic.
“Strength, personal resonsibility, rule of law, facts and figures and history vs. the previous method of liberalism.”
Here’s what might blow your mind, Baklava, so hold on to your hat…
People who disagree with you also believe that they have strength and personal responsibility, adhere to rule of law, and rely on facts and figures and history.
Some have even been to the library as much, if not more so, than you have. (By that standard, wouldn’t many university professors be far wiser than you?)
My point is: perhaps, despite all your efforts (and this is not meant pejoratively), you still don’t know all there is to know. That is, both you and people who disagree with you lay claim to knowledge and all that other good stuff (rule of law). Both claim that their positions are mutually exclusive, but neither can convince the other. The conclusion I draw from this is that neither has a monopoly over truth, as no imperfect human could.
I’m a big fan of Socrates on this one.
“Come back with reason and facts and logic.”
Because you have been overflowing with them?
PS – Asserting that your side of the debate is awesome and mine is stinky is not, contrary to what you might believe, “reason and facts and logic.”
Quack on.
Shepard:
That you feel the need to apologize for a dictatorship says all I need to know about. Fortunately, I understand that you do not represent all on the political right, though this makes two people so far on this thread who have defended a murdering, torturing, terrorist dictator.
Document where I have defended murder.
Document where I have defended torture.
Document where I have defended terrorism.
This is what I said.
Yes, Pinochet was a tyrant. Some of those whom his regime killed were innocent; others were combatants.
That you resort to such invective when I merely point out your ignorance and document your ignorance (1) using left-wing sources is a statement about your integrity. This shows why “dialogue” is futile with you.
That I concede that parts of your statement are correct (tyrant and innocents) but you are unable to concede that any parts of my statements are correct also says something. When in contrast to your statements on Chile, I document my statements, but you are unable to acknowledge that said documentation supports my statements, also says something. This also shows why “dialogue” is futile with you.
(1) Instead of ignorance on your part, it may be deceit, but in this case it is more likely ignorance, as few are well-informed about Chile, and I see you as reacting thusly because you do not like being called out on your lack of knowledge of the subject.
Gringo, it’s deceit. Trust me.
Gringo,
I thought you didn’t want to say anything more about Allende?
Gringo, the only people who give a damn about Allende are communists, because they thought they’d scored another country, only to lose yet again, and they’re still bitter about it.
Outside of Reds, there’s scarcely a person in a thousand nowadays who’s even heard of Allende. That our apparatchik brings this up at all is utterly diagnostic. The next stop is to start whining about Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
“Gringo, it’s deceit. Trust me.”
I have done nothing but discuss here in good faith. I have been called a communist, a liar, a radical, a paid agent provocateur, a Castro sympathizer, and a few other unpleasant things.
I accused Gringo because he constructed the revolution against Allende as legitimate. I think the violent overthrow of democratically elected presidents is immoral; some people apparently don’t. Gringo also constructs “democratically elected politicians” as combatants; what he fails to explain is that they were made combatants by an illegal coup against them. Defending their overthrow by Pinochet is, in my opinion, defending Pinochet. It’s certainly not as if Pinochet was a modern Cincinnatus; he did not seize power only to hand it back to the people. He kept it for himself. I count that as (the second such example here of) sympathy with a dictator.
“the only people who give a damn about Allende are communists”
Or, perhaps, the Chilean people who suffered under his dictatorship.
That you have trouble understanding why people might be upset with a dictator, especially one escaped justice (as so many do), gives lie to anything you have to say about solidarity with the Iranian people.
“The next stop is to start whining about Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.”
One not need sympathize with a person’s political beliefs to believe their murder was unjust.
Again, your inability to recognize the humanity of people who disagree with you politically gives lie to anything you have to say about solidarity with the Iranians, and indicates that any such voices sympathy for them is really about winning political points at home.
Why is being called a communist unpleasant? Are you ashamed of it?
Lots of non-communists talk in these terms:
The Democratic and Republican parties as they exist today are historical contingencies, the product of thousands upon thousands of compromises over centuries, not self-evident or natural expressions of political identity. Confusing the odd mix of positions and policies held by each party in a first past the post system with identity (ie, “strength” versus “weakness” or “rule of law” versus “mob rule”) is a fundamental though understandable error.
Might as well break into a full-throated rendition of The Internationale.
One not need sympathize with a person’s political beliefs to believe their murder was unjust.
Gringo – told ya.
Jeez, maybe we were all wrong about Shepard being a paid blogger. Especially if he’s being paid by the word – nobody could afford it.
The sheer volume of his commentary is creepy and exhausting – like drinking from an unquenchable firehose (aimed from the left, of course.) Which may be the point. If it’s not coordinated, malicious verbal mayhem, what’s the explanation for it?
Perhaps he’s in treatment for logorrhea? If so, he should Step Away From The Computer. He makes Artfl look like Calvin Coolidge. This is not a slam on Artfl.
“Gringo, the only people who give a damn about Allende are communists, because they thought they’d scored another country, only to lose yet again, and they’re still bitter about it. ”
The really interesting thing here is, of course, the notion that one should only care about dictatorships in the context of one’s own political beliefs; if a dictator is on “your” side he’s ok; if he’s on the “other” side, then poo poo him all you want.
Newsflash: you can care about the victims of international terrorism, torture, and political murder, even if the dictator happened to be on the other side of the political spectrum. Sympathy for the victims of tyranny isn’t political; it’s human.
And, again: the politics of dictatorship happen so far from the politics of the American political debate that to say that a dictator is on the “right” or the “left” is, at best, a gross over generalization. Dictators like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have as much in common with the Democratic Party as do Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet have with the right. Which is to say: nothing at all in common.
Unless, of course, Fred here would like to claim Pinochet for the right again.
“Might as well break into a full-throated rendition of The Internationale.”
I get the sense that you don’t know what words like “contingent” mean.
E – touche.
“solidarity” – love it.
Hands off Iran! Defend the Iranian mullahs! Join the International Committee for Peace and Justice in Iran! Say No to War, Racism and Oppression! Fight for Social Justice in America and Iran!
How’m I doing? I’m talking a Berlitz course in Commie-speak.
Speaking as a former Marxist who has long since forsaken that path, I think I got to know the mind of the socialists quite well. I believe the implementation of Communism in Chile under the auspices of Allende, who had taken actions to suspend the power of the legislature by going around it, rendering it moot, would have resulted in far more catastrophe than Pinochet ever ushered in.
I met people like Billy Ayers, who really do believe that we need some sort of “re-education” camps or programs to rid society of their individualism and capitalist ways. Ayers only expressed what many on that side inwardly think: the recalcitrant, counterrevolutionary people need a bullet to the head. Only refugees from the Left like me know that the Marxists ARE AT WAR WITH US.
I think Pinochet did Chile and the Americas a favor. And Allende at least had the good sense to put a bullet in his own brain. As awful as it truly was, it was a good thing that the Marxist activists, guerrillas, and Communist leadership were hunted down and put to death. THEY WERE AT WAR WITH WESTERN CIVILIZATION. When certain groups and individuals are at war with you, you kill them. It really is that simple.
Calling Allende a democrat who was legitimately using power is flimsy logic.
So, I agree with Gringo in his assessment of Allende. That dog got what he deserved. I only wish that today people had more testicular fortitude and would name some Leftists for what they are: Communists.
“Gringo – told ya.”
One last one. I think this is interesting – you’re really staking out the position that one need to sympathize with a person’s political beliefs to believe their murder is unjust and illegitimate?
If this were true – if you had to agree with a person’s politics to believe their murder is wrong – then moral relativism would take on a hugely new importance. Good to know where you stand on the issue of murder.
It’s amazing how the thread count goes up when Shepard’s around. In sheets this is a sign of quality – in Shepard’s case, not so much.
‘“solidarity” – love it.’
Really? You don’t think any non-communist has ever used words like “solidarity” and “contingent”?
What a sad, limited vocabulary you must restrict yourself to, else you commit a terrible thoughtcrime.
“Defend the Iranian mullahs!”
The only people here who have defended tyranny, so far, have been conservatives. The only people here who have indicated any kind of support for the Iranian regime are, of course, the people demanding that Obama do exactly what the mullahs want him to do.
“I think Pinochet did Chile and the Americas a favor.”
Like when Pinochet committed an act of international terrorism in the capital of the United States? Good to know where you stand on that issue, too.
Mussolini was an ardent Marxist, and was highly regarded by Lenin. He jettisoned the international part of Marxism after seeing Italian troops lose their lives for their country. The resulting socialism – within one country rather than within one class across countries – was…national socialism. So Mussolini and Hitler, as collectivists, have more in common with you, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
But I won’t tell the Central Committee about your political error. It was fundamental, but understandable.
More quacking.
Just give it up, and start blathering about “building mass movements” and being in the “vanguard of the working class.” You’re not fooling a soul.
“Why is being called a communist unpleasant? Are you ashamed of it?”
Why is being called a terrorist- and dictator-loving choad unpleasant? Are you ashamed of it?
At the least, I have not actually come out and said, “I’m a communist,” unlike at least one other commenter here who has actually come out and said “I love murdering, torturing, terrorist dictators.” One might think your priorities are a bit misplaced.
For the record: using words like “solidarity” do not make one a communist, else George Bush and Ronald Reagan are also communists.
Ok, just out of curiosity…
Do you think it’s possible for any of you to have a real discussion with anyone who disagrees with you about anything, or are they all communists?
“So Mussolini and Hitler, as collectivists, have more in common with you, Stalin, and Pol Pot.”
LOL. Oh man, I can see this isn’t going anywhere. I carefully made the point that, even if one could place a dictator like Hitler or Stalin on a meaningful political spectrum of “left” and “right,” they are so far removed from the American political experience that these terms become useless. And you respond by saying, more or less, that I’m just like Hitler AND Stalin AND Mussolini AND Pol Pot.
Well, I guess it’s time, then, that I revealed my true identity. Yes, I’m The Devil. The one and only. What else could I be, after that?
It’s not a matter of extent of vocabulary – it’s about selection.
You communists spend so much time proselytizing to each other that you don’t realize how stilted your language sounds to Americans and other non-communists. The issues and language in which you marinate are foreign (literally and figuratively) to Americans.
And while there’s not an American in a thousand nowadays who’s heard of Allende, there’s not one in ten thousand who’s heard of Luxemburg and Liebknecht, much less knows the back story, as you obviously do, and not one in a hundred thousand who’s upset about their fate. It’s not like they wouldn’t have killed their political enemies in a heartbeat, had they had the chance.
Left and right are meaningless terms, thanks to communist obfuscation.
The meaningful and operational distinction is between collectivists (e.g., you) and individualists (e.g., Americans) – whether the state belongs to the individuals comprising it, or vice versa.
So wait, Occam, am I to be castigated now for not knowing enough history, or for knowing too much history?
Wait, I just answered my own question. I am to be castigated for knowing the wrong history. Apologies for the crimethink.
“Left and right are meaningless terms, thanks to communist obfuscation.”
THOSE DAMN COMMUNISTS AND THEIR OBFUSCATION!
*Shakes fist helplessly at the sky.
But seriously, “left” and “right” are not meaningless terms. They are, however, meaningless if you try to use them to compare the “left” and “right” of dictators with the “left” and “right” of the American political debate. Such comparisons are only possibly linguistically, because of a quirk of the language.
George Bush is orders of magnitude more like Barack Obama than either is like Hitler or Stalin. Both agree, for example, that the murder of democratically elected presidents is wrong, something neither Hitler nor Stalin would have had a problem with.
No. You’re to be castigated for waddling. And for being a right-wing deviationist, probably a Bukharinite, and for betraying the masses by being a running dog of the ruling capitalist class.
Apart from that, you’re OK.
For the record: I’ve now had blog commenters believe they could deduce, based only on my handful of blog comments, that I was black, a Persian, and now a communist. Every single one has been wrong, and every single one has been absolutely convinced he or she was correct. Human beings are fascinating creatures.
Oh, I forgot, Jewish too. That one was wrong as well. Still, absolute belief.
Oh, this is awesome.
Black, Jewish, Persian, communist, and now, more specifically, a Bukharinite.
You know, not a lot of people know who the Bukharinites were. That’s awfully suspicious, you know, something only a stealth Bukharinite might know….
Ah, so you admit being a right-wing deviationist, and a running dog of the ruling capitalist class! /g
“Ah, so you admit being a right-wing deviationist, and a running dog of the ruling capitalist class!”
Wait, I thought I was accusing you of being a communist, not admitting to being one.
Seriously, I already admitted to being the Devil. What more do you want from me?
That you’re a commie.
It’s a formality – we know the answer – but it’ll be good for your soul to admit the truth. I’m making a presumption there, but I’ll go with it.
Oh, Great!
On Gateway Pundit, when you see the number of comments reach the triple-digits, you instantly know the thread has been hijacked for a flame war.
We really DON’T need that here. 🙁
–
No, Paul, shshsh – I haven’t been entertained like that for a long time.
The mind gymnastics are fascinating.
I think that you’re actually a communist, and that you’re accusing me falsely to throw other people off your trail.
Here’s what I think of communism: I don’t think communism could work even according to the principles of communism. By this I mean Marx’s concept of the base and superstructure – his notion that the culture and structure of a society, its superstructure, reflected its base, its means and mode of production.
In this, as a philosopher, I think Marx was right. (Though horribly wrong as an economist – I mean, labor theory of value? Come on!) A society’s superstructure DOES reflect its base. Obviously, it’s a more complicated relationship, and the two influence each other, but in general, how we produce influences how we live. Here’s just one example: in feudal society, the surplus of production – grain, basically – could not really be moved easily. So consumers of this surplus went and lived near the surplus, building large manor homes or castles to defend their surplus-producing peasants. In our society, production is very different, and surpluses can be moved easily and consumed anywhere. So we have a highly liquid labor market, in which people move around easily. We also get divorced easily – nothing to keep us stuck in any one place and freeze up the labor market. Now, this is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you get the idea – the culture of a society reflects how it produces economic utility. This isn’t too much of a stretch, right? This is basically the same argument made in The Protestant Ethic, just a little differently.
Now, Marx said: let’s take the engine of capitalism, the only system that could possibly produce enough surplus to let everyone live comfortably materially, and completely change the society around it. Easy, right? Just need a revolution, right? Wrong. Marx’s own analysis of The Economy precludes communism. Capitalism will only change when the underlying means and modes of production change – like when we get replicators or some such. Until then, Marx’s own analysis precludes communism. He wanted to leave means and modes of production alone and change distribution – but he had already concluded that distribution was a function of means and modes of production. FAIL.
So, even if I were a Marxist, which I’m not, I couldn’t be a communist.
Shepard:
I wonder what you would have said about the attempts to murder Adolf Hitler, who came to power in Germany through democratic and constitutional means. There are times when murdering a democratically elected leader seems the most moral choice among many bad ones.
Plus, I’m sure you are not as naive as you sound about how elections are often carried out in third world countries or dictatorships. Witness the current situation in Iran, where but for the protests, Ahmadinejad would be considered to have been democratically re-elected. In fact, even now some (even in this country) assert that Ahmadinejad won the election. Does that mean he cannot be rebelled against? What an absurdity that would be.
As for Allende (who was most definitely no Hitler), he received about 36% of a vote split fairly evenly among three parties, and was (in line with the Chilean constitution) actually elected by the Chilean National Congress, which was required to choose between the two lead candidates. He was indeed democratically elected, but received nowhere near a plurality of Chilean votes and then proceeded to take it as a mandate to nevertheless revolutionize Chile along hard Left lines.
Allende’s election, however, was also a behind-the-scenes battle between Cold War powers—the USSR and the US. Both were involved in financing their favored candidates. However, the USSR was more heavily involved than the US, and their candidate—Allende—got the lead in the popular vote, although barely. Does the fact that Allende was heavily helped by USSR propaganda matter? If the US had invested more money in its campaign to help his opponents, would that have made the election more democratic or less?
And then there’s this: in order to obtain the votes of those he needed in the Chilean Congress to actually win and take power, Allende signed an agreement to respect the constitution. However, in 1973 (not long before the Pinochet coup) the Chilean Congress condemned Allende as being in violation of the constitution—does this matter to you? (see this and this and this among the many sources available on Allende’s career).
We could go on and on with this. The Left certainly has a different story about Allende than the one I have just told—he is a hero foully murdered, rather than a tyrant and economic oppressor whose people rose up and removed him (as well as a suicide). Pinochet (who definitely was a violently repressive guy against the opposition), likewise—two opposing tales.
You, by the way, have been acting as a troll in this thread—although, for the moment I am tolerating your presence. Being a troll has nothing to do with mere disagreement in a discussion, by the way.
One of the many things trolls do is attempt to dominate a conversation by continually bringing up other issues which require lengthy explanations outside of the topic matter at hand. The idea is to both dominate a thread and cause everyone on it to spend a great deal of time and energy rehashing old (and ultimately insoluble) topics such as Allende vs. Pinochet. Tone is also very important in deciding who is a troll and who is not.
I recommend, by the way, if you’re interested in doing any reading, my post here about the dilemma faced by the Shah as far as suppressing an opposition violently opposed to him (see also this for a related post). The dilemmas faced by leaders in countries with very dedicated and hardline (and violent) oppositions are quite different from what we have experienced for the most part in the US—at least so far. We are quite spoiled in that respect in this country; our differences are quite polite and mild compared to the situation in so many other countries.
Thank you for that little disquisition on historical materialism.
I feel vindicated.
I also feel I need to apologize to the others on the thread for my tendentiousness, but for some reason I wasn’t in the mood to let this pass unopposed.
“I wonder what you would have said about the murder of Adolf Hitler, who came to power in Germany through democratic and constitutional means. There are times when murdering a democratically elected leader seems the most moral choice among many bad ones.”
I’ve already made a comment about this – first, that Hitler was not democratically elected as Chancellor, and second, that he is an extreme outlier that cannot be used to justify the murder of elected leaders with whom one disagrees. I’ll even make a third – by banning all future elections, Hitler precluded any other means by which he could be removed from power, other than through violence.
“I’m sure you are not as naive as you sound about how elections are often carried out in third world countries or dictatorships.”
This is exactly why I have clearly stated that one cannot justify the murder of a democratically elected president.
“You, by the way, have been acting as a troll in this thread.”
Any more so than the people here who have flirted with calling for the murder of president Obama, or who have accused me of being a communist?
If you’ll note, I made several attempts to get the conversation back on track. I was not the one who decided to turn this into a lengthy debate of how one can know a communist by his or her use of words like “contingent” or “solidarity.”
Regarding the issue of such a dilemma, I’ll only point out that most of the research on domestically-led peaceful regime change hints that such change is virtually unknown if the security forces side with the regime. The goal must, then, be to find ways of peeling away those security forces.
It was rumored, for example, during the 1997 student riots that all that stood between the regime and its overthrow were the 2,000 loyal Qods thugs. The rest were so unreliable that the regime did not even call them in.
“I feel vindicated.”
You have no reason to be. Knowing things about Marx does not make one a Marxist. It is not, no matter how much you’d like, a thoughtcrime.
“One of the many things trolls do is attempt to dominate a conversation by continually bringing up other issues which require lengthy explanations outside of the topic matter at hand.”
Such as, for example, accusing a person of being a Bukharinite?
as discovered through the mitrokhen archives…
National leaders who cooperated with the KGB
Salvador Allende provided political intelligence to the Soviet Union through “his own emissaries” in Latin American countries. He also reorganized Chile’s intelligence along lines suggested by the KGB. Historian Christopher Andrew argued that financial support through the KGB channels probably played a decisive role for Allende’s victory during the Chilean presidential election, 1970
so much for democratically elected…
is he elected if the elections are fixed sheppard?
nope… so your whole point crumbles once the truth about allende is out… and its a truth from the socialists!!! that is he got crimped cause he was a puppet of the KGB.
many many of the left have had to eat their own crap cause they didnt know that their secrets would ever be revealed. but they were, not only by such defectors as mitroken, but by otehrs like sejna, golitsyn, and dont forget lots of decoded transcripts.
How ‘weak’ Allende was left out in the cold by the KGB
In the second exclusive extract from The Mitrokhin Archive Volume II, the historian Christopher Andrew and KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin
reveal how the Soviet Union influenced the rise and fall of the first democratically elected Marxist leader
Read the first extract of The Mitrokhin Archive Volume II here
Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending “a great deal of time” in her company. “His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.” Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband.
In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. Allende also mentioned to Kuznetsov his desire to acquire “one or two icons” for his private art collection. He was presented with two icons as a gift.
sigh
“And now in this country a stealth election and candidate is in the process of being outed.”
So, having established that you believe “stealthiness” legitimates political violence
no, fraud, a crime that USES stealthyness is the criminal action.
and if a criminal obtains a political office by misrepresenting themselves (committing fraud), then that person should be removed from office.
the problem is that when a despot takes office, he does not allow himself (or herself) to be beholden ot the same laws.
that is allendes dirty men killed for him.. but that was illegal killing. if anyone legally said.. you commited fraud, he would not have said… my bad, let me step down..
so your argumetn is a game of wipsaw words… no one ever said that they were applying allende to the other situatation
if obama took office under the same pretenses as allende, then he violated his oath of office an should step down.
regime change through stealh fraud is only valid to marxists like sheppard. (crypto or not)
He makes Artfl look like Calvin Coolidge. This is not a slam on Artfl.
really? well, that depends on whether you like coolige, ed?
i may spout a lot, but its by virtue of us taking on some very complex conversations in which there are huge books… yoiu do see that i can write less, when the answer is short… but when the answer is completely off the radar, i end up having to explain or background a lot of stuff.
otherwise much earlier i would just mention that we forgot what we were taught about mitrokhen.
sheppard is a troll..
he is what they call Agit Prop. 🙂
Shepard: your exemption of Hitler doesn’t wash. Your definition of “democratically elected” is defined the way you wish to define it in order to make your point.
Mine is: Hitler became Chancellor through a process that was just as constitutional as that of Allende; neither of them won anywhere near a majority, but their ascensions to power were in line with the constitutions of their respective countries (here, by the way, is Hitler’s story).
As I said, your behavior here is that of a troll. I could take a lot of time explaining why I say that, but I’m sure you would disagree. At any rate, you’ve taken up enough of my time and my patience already.
Good point. Gotta follow the Party line here, or else off to the gulag.
Western intelligence agencies suspected Allende maintained connections to the Soviet Union even before Augusto Pinochet’s military Junta deposed him. But Mitrokhin’s documents vividly detail KGB support for Allende as presidential candidate and leader. Moscow gave Chile’s communist party $400,000 during the 1970 election and $50,000 to Allende. The CIA gave $425,000 to Allende’s opponents. After his victory, Allende, codenamed LEADER, continued to receive tens of thousands of dollars in payments. He also asked for–and received–two pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox icons. KGB propagandists even popularised a particularly brutal and heroic account of Allende’s death.
In the central Asian nation, the KGB was brutal, unleashing an Afghan secret police akin to Stalin’s NKVD. In India, meanwhile, the KGB infiltrated and provided monetary support to Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party, pouring millions of rupees into propaganda and dirty tricks to discredit her opponents.
The best passages in the book, though, describe more arcane KGB operations in the Third World. The chapters on KGB spy work in Africa include KGB plots containing almost as much Cold War kitsch as a James Bond film. During the Algerian Revolution, the KGB planted a story in the Italian press claiming the CIA sponsored a French military putsch to stall De Gaulle’s peace talks. The story even made its way into the pages of Le Monde. In operations codenamed DEFEKTOR 3 and DEFEKTOR 4, the KGB disinformation machine used fabricated documents to convince the dictators of Guinea and Mali that CIA agents had plotted their overthrow. During the American Civil Rights Movement, KGB agents in New York sent racist letters purporting to be from American white supremacists to African UN delegates.
and their buying houses as whites, and then moving blacks into them, then blowing them up was another interesting thing.
or the bombings in ny where the jews and african neighborhoods met each other while blaming the JDL…
all now known history…
Relations with President Allende of Chile, for example, began in 1953 and were elevated to “systematic contact” after 1961. During his years of power meetings were often arranged through his favourite mistress, along with sex films and associated cavortings. On one occasion he was personally given $30,000 in order to “solidify trusted relations”, on another $400 for “valuable information”.
Relations with Castro were more troubled. To start with, he was an affluent landowner who took no interest in Communism until in power (although his brother Raul was more sympathetic). Then, having sided with the Soviet Union, he became embarrassingly supportive, comparing the election of President Reagan with that of Hitler and suggesting the redeployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba if US cruise missiles were sent to Europe. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the coup plotters against Gorbachev.
Meanwhile, KGB Active Measures campaigns flourished throughout the world’s media, ranging from the widely-believed CIA-started-Aids story to the alleged kidnapping of Latin American children for US spare part surgery (a story taken up by the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
There is much else in this well-written and often ironically amusing work, making it as great a credit to the scholarship of its author as to the dedication and courage of its originator. It convincingly demonstrates that any assessment of 20th-century international relations that does not include the intelligence dimension is one-legged, at best. And, as Christopher Andrew points out, the SVR – the KGB’s successor – flourishes still.
In the KGB’s view, Allende’s fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.
The first attempt to overthrow the regime was made by activists of the extreme right-wing Patria y Libertad movement. The Santiago residency informed the centre that it had obtained intelligence on plans for the coup and warned Allende. On June 28, however, three combat groups of tanks and armoured cars with about 100 troops left their barracks and headed for the centre of Santiago. The coup petered out in farce. “The column obeyed all the traffic lights and at least one tank stopped to fill up at a commercial gas station.”
The most significant aspect of the failed coup was the apathetic response to it by Chilean workers. Allende broadcast an appeal for “the people . . . to pour into the centre of the city” to defend his Government. They did not do so. That highly significant fact was duly noted by the army chief of staff, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarre.
The KGB later complained that Allende paid too little attention to its warnings of an impending disaster. When Pinochet and a junta launched their coup in the early hours of 11 September, the Communist leadership, who had also been kept informed by the KGB, were better prepared than Allende. The Communist Party newspaper that morning carried the banner headline, “Everyone to his combat post!” “Workers of city and countryside” were summoned to combat “to repel the rash attempt of the reactionaries who are determined to bring down the constitutional Government”. Communist factory managers began to mobilise workers in the industrial belt.
Allende, however, failed to live up to his promise six weeks earlier to summon the people to arms to defend his regime. Instead of seeking support in the working-class areas of Santiago, he based himself in the presidential offices in La Moneda, where he was defended by only 50 to 60 of his Cuban-trained guards and half a dozen officers from the Servicio de Investigaciones. Allende’s lack of preparation to deal with the coup partly derived from his preference for improvisation over advance planning. His French confidant, Régis Debray, later claimed that he “never planned anything more than 48 hours in advance”.
But Allende was also anxious to avoid bloodshed. Convinced that popular resistance would be mown down by Pinochet’s troops, he bravely chose to sacrifice himself rather than his followers. Castro and many of Allende’s supporters later claimed that he was gunned down by Pinochet’s forces as they occupied La Moneda.
In reality, it seems almost certain that, faced with inevitable defeat, Allende sat on a sofa in the Independence Salon of La Moneda, placed the muzzle of an automatic rifle (a present from Castro) beneath his chin and blew his brains out.
Artfldgr: for those who wish to access the Timesonline article on Allende and the KGB,Neo has provided the link. I do not see the point of copying/pasting massive quantities of the article onto the thread.
Artfldgr,
You had better be careful, or you might be banned for trolling.
JUST KIDDING! You can keep doing exactly what you’re doing, so long as you agree with everyone.
Shepard, at 3:12 P.M.
That was a pretty good exposition of some of the weaknesses of Marxist theory. For the record, I never accused YOU specifically of being a Communist. Or even a Marxist. I don’t know what you are and presume not to. I merely took up the strand left dangling earlier about the horrible crimes of Pinochet. I tried to present Pinochet as a man of his time reacting to events that were set in motion by the Communists. Was Pinochet a thug? At times, yes. Were innocents along with the guilty put to death? Yes, unfortunately and tragically that was the case. Would leaving Allende in office have been the better end for Chile and its people? My contention is that the future under Allende and other Communists following him would have been nasty, brutish, and devolving into squalor.
I think Allende would have gone the same route as Castro, and later, Hugo Chavez. It would have been the end to democracy in Chile.
No, as far as I’m concerned I’m glad Pinochet hunted down the Communists and had them killed. They were traitors working, albeit indirectly, in the employ of the Soviets. Including the useful idiots among them.
Finally, people Left-of-Center abroad have no idea of the scorn and revilement that Americans have for people like the State Department employee, Mr. Myers and his wife, who so hated their country and capitalism that they worked for the Communists for over three decades. Were it up to me, I’d have a gallows build and they’d be disposed of the old-fashioned way.
FredHjr,
Here’s the deal: we all like freedom, democracy, liberty, and so forth. These are, as George Bush said, universal human aspirations. What I think you need to do is not say “Pinochet COULD be a thug but also did good stuff too.” I think you need to say, above all else, that he was a murderous, torturing dictator who committed acts of international terrorism on U.S. soil, and that you condemn all that. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like your adherence to things like rule of law and democracy are (here’s that word again!) contingent rather than fundamental.
Conservatives can’t have it both way, both fetishizing liberty AND sympathizing with right-of-center dictators.
You’re also wrong about the Myers: treason is treason, and most people anywhere understand that. Though I am opposed to the death penalty, I sympathize with your desire to see them hanged by their necks until they are dead.
The thing about Allende, as I was just reading moments ago, that is something for Americans to think about: Allende began a program of nationalizing several large industries.
Does that sound familiar?
He called it “Chile’s Path to Socialism.”
And what have we been witnessing here during the first six months of the administration of another man from the Far Left?
I think you need to say, above all else, that he was a murderous, torturing dictator who committed acts of international terrorism on U.S. soil, and that you condemn all that. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like your adherence to things like rule of law and democracy are (here’s that word again!) contingent rather than fundamental.
Conservatives can’t have it both way, both fetishizing liberty AND sympathizing with right-of-center dictators.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” You learned well, grasshopper.
But also note: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
Occam,
I did notice the application of the Alinsky rule in that response. In fact, I notice it often used by people on the Left – many of whom learned it from someone else. Many who use it don’t know where it comes from. I rather suspect that “Shepard” is a Soft Left person from another anglophone country, maybe Canada. Could be U.K., Australia, or New Zealand. In a couple of his responses he used the phrase “the Americans” which tells me he is not one of us.
I have a friend, who happens to be a cousin of mine, who inhabits the Far Left out in Oakland, CA. He quite unconsciously uses that Alinsky Rule often. I figure he picked it up in high school or college (he was a campus radical back in the early Seventies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA).
But I am not going to call “Shepard” a Marxist or a Communist, because I don’t have enough info. or clues that would warrant me doing this. As I said, I’ve known non-Marxists to use Alinsky Rules for Radicals. In fact, the widespread use of them only argues well for the case that what Yuri Bezmenov is talking about in his video clips re. the demoralization of the West is right on the money.
I don’t think I romanticized Augusto Pinochet at all. I acknowledged aspects of his regime that certainly can be characterized as brutal. But I just happen to agree with him having Communists killed. I won’t apologize for that view.
Fred, years in Berkeley made my antennae pretty sensitive to communists. (Amazing they didn’t blow up.)
I look to use of language. Anyone trotting out the stock stilted phrases, arguments (e.g., Pinochet – for God’s sake), and tactics (a la Alinsky) is operationally noted in my book as a communist.
Not to say that all such subscribe to that religion in all of its arcane complexity, or even understand it. Quite the contrary, few do. (Mastering communist theology is as tedious and pointless as mastering astrology, in my view.)
But I think it’s important to strip the mask of plausibility and respectability away from such people and expose them for what they are: purveyors of agitprop. Their bleatings about “democracy” and “humanity” represent another application of Alinsky’s rule above, since they themselves wouldn’t bat an eyelash before crushing democracy and exterminating inconvenient portions of humanity.
Gringo,
I agree… but when i dont paste them, the ones most likely to argue dont go read it. people like you, who are more discerning tend to check it out if its interesting, and not if not.
sorry…. i tend to drive the nail into the next board.
It’s disturbing to me that between 12:04 AM and 4:40 PM today Shepard has managed to make 71 out of the 184 responses on this thread. That’s close to 40% of the comments here.
Quantity is no substitute for substance. And pulling the wings off flies is really only entertaining for the tormentor. Aren’t folks like Shepard supposed to be against torture? What’s going on here is a kind of verbal waterboarding.
Reading over the discussion, it strikes me how often the glossalalic Shepard manages to re-phrase, re-state, and pervert what people have said here in making his arguments.
Is this in order to “change minds,” as he claimed on another post? I’m not persuaded. Saying outrageous things louder and louder and LOUDER is not a good way to persuade people. It is annoying, however.
Hat tip to Shepard for borrowing an idea from another thread – criticizing his tendency to distract and steer people off topic – as an attack against other commentors here. Neatly done! And, you’re busted.
I must admit to a soft spot in my heart for Stalin: So many of his victims were leftists. They made their bed and I’m sure someday ours will sleep just as permanently.
sheppard, JUST KIDDING! You can keep doing exactly what you’re doing, so long as you agree with everyone.
well, thats very not true. i am generally the devils advocate and have interesing alternative views. but i seldom agree with everyone, and none here requires you do.
its not that one disagrees, its ones methods of disagreement and ones methods of trying to win, mass confusion by kitchen sinking is not liked by anyone except the idiot who thinks that by jaming so much down and confusing things because it only takes a few lines to ask a quesiton that takes a book of an answer.
its a stupid technique, and is only used by those smart enough to employ it… but its a short circuit. they never actually understand what they are spouting, as they are only looking for its value in spouting, not in its value as real information.
you can see that when you see the subjects grabbed and thrown… its often like a woman from a 1950s movie who throws everything at the other person, as it smashes on the wall.
thing is that if everyone here wanted agreement, then you would never have gotten this far… that is, your game requires our tolerance.
It’s one reason I refused to substantively engage his arguments, but rather dismissed them out of hand. I can dismiss rubbish faster than (even) he can generate it. It turns the fire hose principle around against those who employ it.
Occam,
If Chilean society was on high alert after Allende moved to nationalize several industries, then that means that the Chileans of that era were more informed and engaged citizens than Americans are.
Obama’s moving quickly to nationalize several industries. And for the most part we hear crickets chirping.
Maybe they didn’t have “Chilean Idol,” or similar trash, to distract them.
Here’s the deal: we all like freedom, democracy, liberty, and so forth. These are, as George Bush said, universal human aspirations.
Apparently not: “It doesn’t matter who wins this election. What is important is the fact that there was a robust debate.”
Shep, it still sounds to me like you are defending Obama’s fecklessness because it may appeal to the tender mercies and conscience of the Republican Guard.
‘Cuz after all “….for the most part, they’re not any different from soldiers and police in any country.”
This has got to be a parody of a wooly-minder, one-world, dictator-loving, Mullah-sniffing, bedwetting, feckless, cowardly, tepid lefty. No one can actually think like this….
We just don’t live in the same world.
Gray,
I’ll point you to this article from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a right-of-center think tank:
“The May 1997 election of reformist candidate Muhammad Khatami to the presidency put further stress on civil-military relations. Though senior IRGC officers had endorsed his conservative opponent (Majlis speaker Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri), credible post-election press reports indicated that IRGC personnel voted for Khatami in even greater proportions than did the general population (73 percent versus 69 percent).
This indicates that the IRGC — a military organization long thought to have been a bastion of support for conservative hardliners — was in fact riven by the same divisions as Iranian society. This, perhaps, should not have come as a surprise, due to the fact that for the past two decades, the IRGC has increasingly come to rely on conscripts to meet its manpower needs, due to a drastic decline in volunteers. This raised questions about the political reliability of the IRGC should it be needed to quell popular unrest. “
That is, your insults aside, I think you’re mixing up the rank-and-file of the IRGC with its leadership. The regime’s position has been very precarious for some time. Convincing those security forces that the protests are legitimate is key here.
I wonder whether this “Not helping is the best way to help” story is going to convince anyone who isn’t looking to be fooled. Sort of like “Freedom is Slavery” or “War is Peace,” perhaps.
Shoop, the Shepard Sockpuppet, from your link:
And while the Basij is probably more thoroughly vetted than other mass organizations (due to the role of local clerics and mosques in the recruitment process), it is hard to believe that its membership is insulated from the broader political forces at work in Iranian society today.
No, it’s not hard to believe.
His non-conclusions are based on information from 8-10 years ago with an admission that the Basij has become the “Guardian of the Regime” under Amadinejad, a former basij.
He further talks about importing muscle when the local Fascisti waiver.
He comes close to making a point, but never really does. How do I know? I used to be an Army Intell Officer as well. BFD….
The fact the writer was an adviser to the Iraq Study Group Surrender Committee doesn’t recommend him.
“Maybe they will just play nice if we are nice to them” is the definition of a feckless foreign policy.
Convincing those security forces that the protests are legitimate is key here.
F’in please…. The average Anthropoid from the outskirts of Qom aren’t exactly schooled in Locke.
“Mr Ahmedinejad, tear down this wall, or leave it up if you want. We don’t want to appear as meddling. And we are sorry. Very, very sorry. Please try not to shoot too many women and children.”
Having said that, and enjoyed the way I said it: If the IRGC and Basij schism and portions end up fighting loyalists and supporting reform, I will eat every delicious word.
It would be wonderful if it happened, but Obama’s “softly, softly” policy on shooting protestors tells me we have no one on the inside, no idea what is going to happen, no HUMINT inside the Basij of IRGC and are just hedging our bets so as not to kick the ass we will have to kick later.
I prefer a muscular American policy that at least pays lip-service to Human Rights and Liberty in other countries if not outright defeating tyranny.
No one bleats and pisses harder than the dirty, dirty Left when we remove A Boot from the neck of The Peoples.
“kiss the ass we will have to kick later.”
Or vice-versa, I don’t care…. Either way, it’s feckless.
How does one reconcile the fear of irking Iran by supporting the students with the openness to dealing with Hezbollah, a sworn subverter of the Lebanese state? ….
Smith makes the argument that liberalism isn’t really as popular as one might think with the intelligensia; that of late a perverse infatuation with fascism and a deeply illiberal attraction for the strong horse exists where we would least suspect it.
He’s talking about you, Mr Snarky Shep-puppet.
Gray,
Check out my response on Wretchard’s blog discussion you called our attention to. #14
My point is that we have no right to let these tragically flawed and vicious totalitarian youngsters burn down the achievement of millenia. We have to render an accounting for our deeds and what we failed to do to our Creator. Cowardice is no excuse. These terrible people must be stopped, by whatever means necessary. And I do mean that.
““The Pinochet regime hung on to power much longer than was necessary, but did relinquish power eventually. Today, Chile is a democratic government and a prosperous society.”
As is Germany, but one does not use this datum to justify Hitler.”
Totally false historical analogy by Shepard, unless he is in possession of some information that I’m not aware of that the US had to invade and bomb the crap out of Chile to get rid of Pinochet and then occupied it for decades to install a democratic (small d) government.
At the time I thought that OB was a little hard on old Shep, but in retrospect I see the validity of his approach.
Old Shep’s approach did have some similarity with Communist agitprop.
1) Keep hammering, keep repeating.
2) Never concede that your opponent may have some valid points, but insist that your opponent admit the validity of your points.
3) Instead of discussing a subject, which would involve actually admitting that your opponent might have some validity, keep hammering your point.
4) Misrepresent your opponent’s position.
That has a lot of similarity with Communist agitprop, as I recall the genre.
Gringo.
Good points. If you want to see them on steroids, try disagreeing with a post on a femblog.
Especially the part about misrepresenting the position you have taken.
But the fems have gone Alinsky one better. Or did he have a chapter on spluttering obscenities?
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Pingback:neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Better late… | news ohsiam
I wish he’d said it sooner, but I like what he did say. In my ongoing struggle not to fall victim to ODS, I want to be sure to give credit when it’s due. Useless as the words may ultimately be, they are moving and strong and I am glad they have been said.
I agree with Mrs Whatsit, but I wish that Mr. Obama had spoken directly before a TV camera, not relayed the message in a written statement. That rather underplays it, doesn’t it?
The one thing he can probably influence is the public reaction of people around the world. He could stimulate demonstrations of support everywhere from South Africa to Chicago. This could effect the outcome without “Meddling”, if he’s smart about it.
Could it be he hasn’t thought of it?
It’s one thing not to know who Moussavi is and what his true motivations are, but we are four months into Obama’s term and we still aren’t sure who he is and why he does what he does and doesn’t do what he doesn’t do.
Here’s a Powerline piece with no less than five possible explanations for Obama’s tardy, tepid responses to Iran: Why Is Obama AWOL on Iran?
They’ve run a poll on the five possibitlies. “Obama is without a clue, and knows it” is way out in front with 39%.
huxley: Interesting point. I took a look at that poll. I think the best answer might be “all of the above.” The five responses are not mutually exclusive.
Oops, make that five months into Obama’s term…
Time sure flies when you don’t know who the president is.
I cannot escape the notion that this man is not really very smart at all. We have seen no evidence – none – of his academic performance or achievements, and in fact it has been hidden from us. He has no distinguished accomplishments as either a community organizer or as a politician, other than winning elections under . . . unusual circumstances.
He cannot talk extemporaneously; take away the teleprompter and he seems lost, hesitant, unsure of himself, not the usual characteristics of the intellectually-assured.
So he may just be who, and what, his handlers want him to be on any given occasion, and that being the case – more than a sock puppet, but not much more – we cannot look for, or expect, consistency in the White House.
Should be exciting.
He phoned it in…. Lame.
Not exactly a “tear down this wall!” moment, was it?
I have really enjoyed hearing lefties on the new channels and the intertubes acting as apologists for the Mad Mullahs.
The dirty, dirty leftists have never met a dictator they didn’t caress and fondle. Mullah-sniffers….
Yes, Nell, I agree. He should have said it, in that voice of his. I did not realize at first that he had not, and of course, it’s yet another way of detaching himself from it, of leaving room to deny. I guess he will never run out of them.
This is a foreign policy disaster. The Chosen One has no idea what to do here and has no one on his staff with the experience to give him good guidance.
I agree that he phoned this one in. There should have been a Prime Time address that spoke directly to the Iranian people.
Plan on seeing this one on the same page with The Hungarian Revolution, Prague Spring and Tianimen Square.
This is defining his presidency:
Like Carter except more feckless and naive….
“Obama has searched for the right tone in light of political pressures on all sides.”
This line from neo’s link sums up Obama’s relationship with the principles of freedom and democracy.
Reagan didn’t have such problems because he had principles and he spoke from them. He called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” Nonetheless he went on to successful negotiations with the Soviets, and the Soviet Union broke up shortly afterward.
Obama’s reliance on the right words and the right tone to please everyone chills me. God help us if we ever need Obama to lead us in a desperate situation, where the choices are stark and real, and the actions required involve something more than sending out predator drones or spending astronomical amounts of money.
The problem will arise when the right thing to do is not at the same time the popular thing to do. Roosevelt faced it vis a vis the Neutrality Act and support for Britain, while Reagan faced it with the Iran-contra affair. Obama is a weakling who doesn’t know what he believes until he’s told by his superiors, for whom he is the spokesmodel. He is going to make Carter looks gutsy by comparison.
What gives me hope for this situation is that the horror stories turning up do NOT seem to end with the protesters running for their lives and giving up completely. The casualties appear to stem from them continuing their resistance.
The first time a policeman raised his riot stick and stalked towards a protester, expecting him to run as usual, but the protester just stood there and looked back at him, and it was the policeman that backed down and walked away, was probably the start of a fire that has taken on a life of its’ own.
The biggest problem with being an oppressor depending on fear, is “GOD HELP YOU” if they ever STOP being afraid of you.
Yeah, the security forces are reacting, but it’s damned hard to stuff the djinni back into the bottle; ain’t it?
–
So, should we send in special American commandos to assist the resistance now? Or wait?
The Iranian people are going to wish they never told the world they wanted thier revolution to come from within, who is there to save them?
Not a very strong response by that jackass to this:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0db_1245519048
Unspeakable.
They’ve run a poll on the five possibitlies. “Obama is without a clue, and knows it” is way out in front with 39%.
Huxley,
Speaking of polls, approval ratings for Republicans hit an all-time low last week in both the New York Times/CBS News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls.
The dirty, dirty leftists have never met a dictator they didn’t caress and fondle.
Grey,
You are forgetting that it was Reagan and Thatcher who used to Pinochet, dictator of Chile. Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists.
I’d like to see an Iranian teenager with a “Mr Obama, this ain’t about your poll numbers” T-shirt on.
Orange:
As this is poorly written, it is difficult to discern precisely what Orange means. Here is some information on the Pinochet era (1973-1990).
I find it interesting that Orange doesn’t mention the junta in Argentina ( 1976-1983), responsible for an estimated 30,000 killed versus 3,000 for Pinochet. Thatcher’s (1979-1990) prosecution of the 1982 Falklands War, and Reagan’s (1981-1989) support of the UK in the war, were instrumental in bringing down the Argentine junta. There were considerably more democratically elected governments in Latin America when Reagan left office than when he took office.
Pinochet tried to get out of respecting the results of the 1988 referendum, in which voters were asked to decide between keeping Pinochet in power for 8 more years or holding Presidential elections. The voters decided 56-44 to hold Presidential elections. The Reagan Administration put pressure on Pinochet to respect the results.
There was considerable support in Chile for Pinochet’s 1973 coup. Three weeks before the 1973 coup, the democratically elected House of Deputies passed by 81-47 a resolution titled the “Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy.” An excerpt follows.
In general and in specific, the resolution could be interpreted as an invitation to a coup. Allende himself called it such. The democratically elected members of the House of Deputies would not have passed such a strongly-worded resolution by a commanding 63- 37% majority if their constituents, the Chilean people, were not also disgusted with the Allende government’s repeated violations of law and democratic procedure.
“…Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists.”
Save us all the crocodile tears, Orange. The 3,000 or so people who perished under Pinochet’s rule pale in comparison to the millions murdered under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the hundreds of thousands who died as a result of war and government-imposed starvation in communist president Mengistu Haile Mariam’s Ethiopia, and the 100,000-plus who died in North Vietnamese “reeducation” camps. And what did your precious leftists do to save any of them?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
But Obama needs the mullah regime in order to work the transformational magic of his eloquence. With wise and calming words he would sooth those savage beasts, whose fierce rancor had perplexed the entire world. But those little sh!tz in the streets have stolen his show. No wonder he’s stammering and yawping.
I don’t things will turn out well for the brave protesters, not this time. Some consolation will be if Obama receives the contempt and shame he has earned.
damage control. it just insures that the situation is ambiguous and the argument shifts to the opinion of when you should speak… not whether he spoke or not. even this late in the game he could burn the candle at both ends by making a statement after the state has had time to prepare before the people were emboldened by such a statement. it does make a difference when he says it, but to the average joe, they will not realize why.
“Better late than never?” C’mon, so Soros took the week off, probably trout fishing out of cell phone range. Destroying America is hard work. Now that Barry has been told what he thinks, he issued a statement. And so he issued a statement instead of speaking publicly. The teleprompter was in the shop. Cut him some slack.
Besides, Barry had more important things to do than pay attention to the potential distintegration of a fanatical enemy of America striving to construct nuclear weapons. You think Bo’s going to housetrain himself?
What is great is that it doesn’t matter what Obama says or doesn’t say, or what the congress does, or what the MSM decides to cover, this revolution in Iran is a completely internal affair.
Imagine if this country had an election that was obviously and crudely rigged and we woke up the next day knowing in our bones that we no longer lived in a democracy.
Would we take to the streets and demand our power back? If the government responded with force, would we meekly accept our fate and return to our homes and resume lives suddenly made smaller and more subservient?
I think that this theocracy is in it’s death spiral. It may take a while but the only way to keep power is to deny it’s citizens any of the tools of modern life – computers, telephones, faxes, email, internet, all of those things which are in abundance in Iran and without which the country cannot thrive.
This is not some backward country like Afghanistan. This is a country that is totally wired and whose children have grown up knowing what is happening in the world.
This is not just some students protesting, or some fringe peace march. This is a total split in the power structure of the country, a civil war, of sorts. Whether this war for power is waged with guns or with writs, it doesn’t matter.
Of course the most important thing is to see if the young men in the army and in the police force will be able to beat and kill their fellow citizens. These are their family members and friends.
The rumors are that many of the thugs that are attacking the demonstators are foreign, mostly Arab, mercenaries, recruits from Palestine and Lebanon. A country that must rely on foreigners to subdue it’s citizens is doomed.
Let Obama speak or not speak, he is irrelevant to this piece of history. No matter what happens, he, as head of state, will have to deal with Iran.
It’s interesting how when leftists want to criticize the right on human rights they go back to Pinochet, who ruled Chile at just about the same time Pol Pot held sway in Cambodia.
“The five responses are not mutually exclusive.”
You’ve got a good point, neo, but “clueless and knows it” is actually the last one I would have voted for. While BO and his minions are certainly clueless, the problem is he *doesn’t* know it. Their ignorance is matched only by their arrogance.
Obama made it a point to at least make an attempt to draw a line between the extremist and the moderates in side Islamic regimes, we were not clear about the distinction he was making, how he responds, whether it’s tactic silence for the right moment, as it may turn out, or coming out now and voicing support for the protesters — if the moment is not later then it is now, we’ll all be much wiser about what Obama is REALLY made of soon, we’ll at least have some indisputable evidence, as opposed to parochial mildly anecdotal subjection, he can’t puff himself up and swagger around the rising freedom movement in Iran. The survival of democracy is predicated on the crushing, swift, and humiliating defeat of fascism. I am so angry — and depressed! I want to see actionable international solidarity with reformist minded people who are brutalized and striped of dignity from repressive regimes. Times like this make me extra proud to be an American, of a greater and enduring tradition, and in a position to use great force with social justice in a globalist prospective and human liberation as our more noble and merciful endeavor, to kill fascism that prevails in our day and help individuals gain an opportunity for self responsibility and self ownership and freedom to achieve what they can of their individual dreams.
There were some pretty straight ahead statements made about Obama on Maggie’s Farm this morning. I won’t argue with any of them.
we’ll all be much wiser about what Obama is REALLY made of soon
“It doesn’t matter who wins this election. The important fact is there was a robust debate.”
“You are forgetting that it was Reagan and Thatcher who used to Pinochet, dictator of Chile. Meanwhile, Pinochet used to assassinate leftists.”
I approve of Pinochet’s having killed Leftists. I approve of the deposing and killing of Allende.
By the way, I was a Leftist 1977-1987, so I was not a Reagan supporter at that time.
it is about time but he needs to put his voice behind those words and get our allies to speak out moiré.
Please read my blog am new and could use help
“I approve of Pinochet’s having killed Leftists. ”
So, you block me without warning or cause, and yet you allow sympathy for the murder of innocent people for their political beliefs to be expressed on your blog?
Nice. Good to know your standards. Stay classy, doc.
Wow! Gotta say, I’m surprised that one got through.
That’s right, “Shepard.” Given what Allende and the Communists were doing to Chile, I think they got what they deserved. Look, capitalism and the West are at war with Communism. I used to be, for all practical purposes, a revisionist Marxist, so I know about Communism and Communists from long and deep experience. They are at war with our economic and political system. For trying to bring down Chile’s republic, Allende and his followers got their just deserts.
Since Marxism intends to bring us down and destroy our civilization, yes I am in favor of killing them. Because the evidence of history strongly supports the view that they are the real killers on a massive scale. And if they don’t do it through “re-education” they do it through destroying economies and bringing more people into poverty, instead of prosperity.
So, I agree with what Pinochet did. I did not used to, back when I was on the other side.
FredHjr,
You disgust me to the core of my being.
Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands. The position you take here is as un-American as one can take.
Pinochet was a dictator, a murderer, and a torturer. Oh, and he was an international terrorist, murdering a Chilean and an American in the capital of the United States of America.
Yes, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were worse. So? Being the least bad murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator in the room does not excuse one from being a murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator.
Failure to understand that one can oppose both Pinochet and other murderous tyrants is a failure of both imagination and morality.
One does not need to be “on the other side” to believe that Pinochet was a tyrant who led a regime that murdered a democratically elected president and thousands of other innocent Chileans. In a democracy, one responds to policies one does not like by contesting elections and competing in the free market place of ideas. One does not murder.
Following our previous discussion Myers and his representativeness, or lack thereof, of the mindset of all on the left of the political spectrum, can I now say that FredHjr represents some or all on the right of the political spectrum? How many agree here that political disputes in an electoral democracy should be settled through murder, torture, and terrorism?
PS – If my inability to post for the last several days was due to something other than a ban, I apologize for presuming otherwise.
Shepard: Actually, I didn’t block you. Sometimes my spam filter shuts out people—even regular commenters here—for no reason. I haven’t yet figured out why. Usually it’s temporary, and they find that in a day or so they have no trouble getting back in and commenting.
That said, it’s interesting to me that you thought I had blocked you and yet you managed to come back with a new IP number. This is sometimes (although not always) an indication of a troll.
And by the way, I have a very liberal (pardon the pun) comments policy here. But I also reserve the right to ban anyone I wish to, for any reason, at any time, with no notice whatsoever. I try to do so only for good cause, however (see this for a further explanation).
As I said, I apologize.
I use proxies. I recommend everyone does on the internet. Too many lives can be ruined too easily by online nutjobs.
“I have a very liberal (pardon the pun) comments policy here.”
Apparently:
“I approve of Pinochet’s having killed Leftists.”
Anyway, to get back on the topic of this thread…
It appears that most people commenting here agree that Obama’s response to the crisis in Iran has been lackluster, at best, and a total failure at worst. This failure has been ascribed to his stupidity and other personal failings.
I’d like to make the argument now, to which you may not have been exposed, that Obama’s policy has both been very smart and exactly what he should be doing.
The protesters cannot change the Iranian system through coercive force. The regime holds extensive coercive power, while the protesters do not. If the regime decides to crush the protesters with force, and the security forces obey their orders, the protesters will be killed and the protests crushed.
The nonviolence advocated by Gandhi and so far followed by the protesters works when they convince people with access to coercive power not to use it. Chances are, they’re not going to convince the regime itself to dissolve or reform significantly. This leaves the only possible avenue of change up to the security forces themselves.
Sometimes, security forces crack down. This is what happened in China in 1981. Sometimes, security forces sit back and don’t intervene. Sometimes, security forces join the protesters against the regime.
These latter two are, of course, what we’d like to see happen, right?
So the question is one of how best to achieve this. Some people advocate vocal support for the protesters and a condemnation of the fraudulent election. This is, after all, exactly what the regime has accused us of doing, right? We might as well do it, since we’re already being accused of it, right?
Wrong. The regime is accusing the U.S. of meddling because it thinks this will be an effective way of maintaining its rule. If the security forces believe the protesters have legitimate grievances, or if they believe that they should not be in the business of cracking the skulls of their countrymen and -women, the regime loses. It wants the security forces, the pivot point, to believe that the protests are illegitimate. One way of achieving this, in a country with a long history of foreign meddling in its internal affairs, is to convince the security forces that the protesters are part of a foreign conspiracy to control Iran.
The beliefs of the security forces, in Clausewitzian terms, are the regime’s center of gravity.
The more we appear to be taking sides, meddling, intervening, influencing, bankrolling, stirring up, agitating, or controlling, the less legitimate the protesters appear to be. The less legitimate the protesters appear to be, the more likely their skulls will be cracked.
Obama, I believe, understands all this and has chosen his response very carefully and very well. The more we stand apart from the protests, beyond what Obama has already said, the better the chances of real change happening.
Moussavi on facebook
http://www.facebook.com/mousavi
“”Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands. The position you take here is as un-American as one can take.
Shepard””
How does this myth keep getting embedded in the liberal mind? For Gods sake man. There wouldn’t even be an America if this were true.
Sheppard, if there was somebody who’d magically appeared to kill democratically elected Hitler before he put his plans to practice, the world would be a better place.
Note, everyone: with an expert sleight of hands Shepperd turned approval of killing of leftists (active professional revolutionaries) into advocating murder of innocent people.
Are you training for a persecutor in “hate speech” trials, Sheppard?
Sorry for misspelling; please substitute Sheppard with Shepard.
sheppard is a troll, from his using proxies and attempting to get around a ban he expected, to saying he wanted to see how high he could get my blood pressure, and on and on…
now that we have that straight, anyone know where the chip dip and beer is?
The point, as Shep is anxious to avoid, is not that some guy was worse than some other guy.
It is not a matter of “tu quoque”.
It’s that if you were not outraged at the atrocities of the left, your outrage at the atrocities of the right are not a matter of principle–which Shep pretends–but of partisan hackery.
“Are you training for a persecutor in “hate speech” trials, Sheppard?”
As I understand it, we don’t have hate speech trials in this country.
If you are referring to hate crimes legislation, which as I understand it often gets confused with hate speech legislation, we can have that separate conversation.
“How does this myth keep getting embedded in the liberal mind? For Gods sake man. There wouldn’t even be an America if this were true.”
You are, I think, mixing up a revolution against a king, who by definition was not a democratically elected leader, and a parliament that was unrepresentative of the thirteen colonies with murdering a democratically elected president.
“Sheppard, if there was somebody who’d magically appeared to kill democratically elected Hitler before he put his plans to practice, the world would be a better place.”
This is a fair point, but I’d like to refer back to my previous point: Hitler was an extreme outlier in most ways. It’s not really smart to use the most extreme situation possible to justify extreme responses. “I have the sniffles. It might be cancer. Better start amputation and chemo.”
More importantly, Hitler was never democratically elected. The Nazi Party controlled a plurality, not a majority, of seats in the Reichstag, and Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg at Papen’s urging.
So, the analogy doesn’t work for two very good reasons.
The reason why I am not opposed to the Pinochet coup against Allende’s Communist government is because Allende ran in an election as someone he was not, and he was ramming through socialist policies which the legislature in Chile became opposed to. You have a Communist revolutionary who misrepresented himself, because he knew if he was open about the fact that he was a Marxist-Leninist he would never have been elected.
“Shepard” may piss and moan about my brutality and the odiousness of my views, and about how I would condone the murder of people I am politically opposed to. But the fact of the matter is that running as a stealth candidate, as Allende did, even if “democratically elected,” amounts to a theft. Deceiving the people and then attempting to overthrow the existing economic and political order is treason in any society. Traitors who are this large often merit the gallows or the wall.
Allende was the point man in a stealthy and massive attempt to take over a society that already had a republic. It tied right back to the Soviet Union by way of Cuba. And the people working with Allende were foot soldiers in this annexation and fraud. I deplore the executions of truly innocent people (and there were those, of that we have no doubt), but most of the people swept up by Pinochet’s coup were in fact foot soldiers for the Communists. They were more than mere “political opponents.” They were acting as revolutionary insurgents for a foreign power, employing whatever degree of stealth and deception they required to fulfill their missions. They were caught and they were killed.
The Pinochet regime hung on to power much longer than was necessary, but did relinquish power eventually. Today, Chile is a democratic government and a prosperous society. It is perhaps the most prosperous country in South America because capitalism was preserved and Communism’s inroads into Chile uprooted and burned.
Your side lost, “Shepard.” Get over it. And now in this country a stealth election and candidate is in the process of being outed. Hopefully, we will have the good sense to boot them out of office, in stages, beginning in 2010.
“It’s that if you were not outraged at the atrocities of the left, your outrage at the atrocities of the right are not a matter of principle—which Shep pretends—but of partisan hackery.”
This is interesting. You have nothing by which to judge my attitude toward anything other than the words I have written here.
Just for the record, I am appalled by, and condemn to the utmost of my being each and every tyrant, dictator, autocrat, and genocide.
Now, even if you assume – which you likely will – that I am lying, you have an example here in this forum of a conservative who not only fails to condemn a murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator, but actually voices support for a murderous, torturing, terrorist dictator.
It would seem that if you actually cared about chastising people for their failure to condemn vociferously enough a tyrant, as opposed to (ahem) scoring cheap partisan points, you might say something about that first.
“The Pinochet regime hung on to power much longer than was necessary, but did relinquish power eventually. Today, Chile is a democratic government and a prosperous society.”
As is Germany, but one does not use this datum to justify Hitler.
This is what I was really interested in:
“ut the fact of the matter is that running as a stealth candidate, as Allende did, even if “democratically elected,” amounts to a theft. Deceiving the people and then attempting to overthrow the existing economic and political order is treason in any society. Traitors who are this large often merit the gallows or the wall.”
So you have established what exactly you think legitimates political violence against a democratically elected president: their “stealthiness,” for shorthand.
You then make another very interesting point:
“And now in this country a stealth election and candidate is in the process of being outed.”
So, having established that you believe “stealthiness” legitimates political violence, including murder (of which you heartily approve!), you then define this country as being lead by a “stealthy” party. We’re talking about Obama and the Democrats in Congress, right?
Do you think that, just as Allende’s murder was legitimate and good, the murder of Obama would also be legitimate and good?
Or are there degrees of stealthiness?
Also, something I’ve never understood very well is how the political right in the United States, which has now for a number of years appropriated for itself the mantle of the vanguard of all things freedom, liberty, and democracy, can be sympathetic at all, to any degree, to any dictator, tyrant, or autocrat, even one who was sympathetic to free market economics.
It sort of calls into question your whole dedication to principles and what-not.
‘Your side lost, “Shepard.”’
I’m not sure why my name warrants ironic quotes, but ok.
But, I think it’s really interesting that you understand things through the lens of games: sides, winning and losing, and so forth. That’s all it really is for you, isn’t it?
But, going back to the original point of this post (stop trying to get me off topic! who’s paying to to derail this thread???), I think Obama has handled the Iranian crisis very well.
Shepard,
The application of the Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” does not work on me. You need to go back to your Kommissar for consultation in order to find another angle of approach.
And I did not call for a violent overthrow of president Obama’s regime. All I said was that he was a magnificent stealth candidate, and that the layers are now being pulled back and his poll numbers are starting to crumble. Polling done that focuses on the actual policies and program proposals show weak support for them. Eventually his personal popularity will fall, as the rotten edifice underneath falls.
I don’t know what country you are from, but just to inform you that in the U.S. we will have congressional elections in November of 2010, and then congressional and presidential elections in 2012. I expect the president and his supporters will be losing their offices in stages over the course of those two elections.
That will be quite an achievement, since our media is overwhelmingly advocating Obama and the socialists. The education system has been seeding the ground for decades. Despite all of this, reality is crashing the socialists. Americans may be fooled by stealth candidates, but most of them are not fools and eventually the “get it.” It happened back in 1976-1980. Carter was a stealth candidate, and eventually his Left policies crashed and burned. Same is happening today. Two generations of Americans, Generations X and Y, were either not around back then or were just kids, and did not know of or understand what was happening. Well, they are getting the lesson now. I think a lot of them will vote differently going forward.
“Just for the record, I am appalled by, and condemn to the utmost of my being each and every tyrant, dictator, autocrat, and genocide”.
Does that include Castro, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, and every other left-wing tyrant who promised to usher in the “new communist man”, making that omelet by “breaking a few eggs”? If so, good on you. You’re one of the few. And BTW, why does your side only speak out against the Pinochets, Mobutus, and Suhartos of the world when the number of people they kill is–in general, not always–comparatively small when compared with the dictators of the left?
For the record, I don’t like dictators of any type, whether ultra-nationalists like Suharto, kleptocrats like Marcos, or communists like Castro. They all abuse the rights of their own people, usurp the people’s prerogatives, and invariably destroy their own countries’ economies.
“The application of the Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” does not work on me.”
That’s good to know, if I were ever tempted to read Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and attempt to apply them on you. Beyond this, your assumption that disagreement with you implies a conspiracy of radicals learning rules to use against their political foes is both a little nuts and a stark illustration of the term hubris.
“I did not call for a violent overthrow of president Obama’s regime.”
You never actually came out and said it, which is why I asked you to clarify.
“All I said was that he was a magnificent stealth candidate, and that the layers are now being pulled back and his poll numbers are starting to crumble.”
Well, that’s not all you said. I will paraphrase: you said that the murder of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was legitimate and good because Allende had been a stealth candidate.
You then describe Obama as a stealth candidate.
All I did was wonder if this means that you believe the murder of the democratically elected president of the United States, Barack Obama, would also be legitimate and good.
If not, I wonder why.
“I don’t know what country you are from, but just to inform you that in the U.S. we will have congressional elections in November of 2010, and then congressional and presidential elections in 2012.”
I’m from the U.S. and, as I’ve established, I’m a better American than you.
“I expect the president and his supporters will be losing their offices in stages over the course of those two elections.”
Yes, this is what we do in liberal democracies where we respect the rule of law: when we don’t like our elected officials’ policies, we vote them out of office at the next election. We do not murder them.
“That will be quite an achievement, since our media is overwhelmingly advocating Obama and the socialists.”
As far as I can tell, the “media” are not advocating any socialists because there are no socialists of note for whom to advocate.
Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands.
Contrast that strong statement with:
“It doesn’t matter who wins this election. What’s important is the fact there was a robust debate.”
“Does that include Castro, Chavez, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Zedong, Lenin, Stalin, Che Guevara, Pol Pot, and every other left-wing tyrant.”
Yes. I made no qualifications.
“You’re one of the few.”
This is absurd beyond belief. The political right does not own distaste for dictatorship. That is an American sensibility. I do not assume that because FredHjr, a conservative, has openly indicated his support for a murdering, torturing, terrorist dictator, that all conservatives do. I believe he is something of an outlier. Why? Because I believe the American people, of all political stripes, are good. I’m not sure why you don’t. But to believe that people on the left of the political spectrum in this country are not appalled by dictators, even leftist dictators, in this day and age requires a willful ignorance.
“And BTW, why does your side only speak out against the Pinochets, Mobutus, and Suhartos of the world when the number of people they kill is—in general, not always—comparatively small when compared with the dictators of the left?”
This is part of the problem here – your need to rank dictators by their horribleness so as to make sure that no really bad dictators are on “your side,” that all the really nasty ones are on “my side.” We’re both (I assume) Americans. Therefore, we can say with great certainty, that no dictator is on our side. By this I mean that the vast majority of political debate in this country, no matter how nasty or alienating it might seem to people engaged in it, takes place within a framework that assumes liberal democracy, free markets, and individual rights are the best. We’re debating over the details, no matter how much you want to deny this. The politics of dictatorship are so far from the politics of Democrats and Republicans that we cannot talk in any meaningful way about dictators being on either “side.”
FredHjr claiming Pinochet for the right aside, of course.
The politics of dictatorship are so far from the politics of Democrats and Republicans that we cannot talk in any meaningful way about dictators being on either “side.”
“It doesn’t matter who wins this election. The important fact is there was a robust debate.”
Gray,
Thanks for putting the thread back on track. What’s with these people trying so hard to derail it? We can agree 100% that they’re paid agents, for that’s the only logical explanation.
Anyway, please see my comment above. I think Obama’s near total lack of any public statement on Iran has both been calculated and the best possible policy he can pursue.
Anyway, please see my comment above. I think Obama’s near total lack of any public statement on Iran has both been calculated and the best possible policy he can pursue.
Yeah…. He’s doing to Iran what Kennedy did to Cuba. At least he didn’t encourage them and then sit on his hands like Papa Bush did to the Kurds.
It makes me feel queasy to see an American President not even willing to pay lip service to democratic ideals and basic human rights.
So he phoned in a tepid and feckless response which signalled to the Mullah’s that we just don’t give a shit if they kill every last man woman and child protestor so long as there was a “robust debate”.
‘So he phoned in a tepid and feckless response which signalled to the Mullah’s that we just don’t give a shit if they kill every last man woman and child protestor so long as there was a “robust debate”.’
Did you read my comment above? I believe Obama is doing what he’s doing exactly because it is the best path to minimizing deaths among the protesters and maximizing political change.
I believe Obama is doing what he’s doing exactly because it is the best path to minimizing deaths among the protesters and maximizing political change.
I believe that is exactly what Obama believed: “If we don’t provoke the dictator, maybe he will play nice.”
It didn’t work. It was feckless and tepid. This is a foreign policy disaster.
Obama Prevaricated and People were Exterminated.
Shep, I happen to agree with you that all dictators are “anti-American”, and I don’t particularly want any of them on my side, nor do I wish to be on theirs. But if you’re going to call me out on Pinochet, then you better believe I’m going to call you out on Castro. It’s not simply to say one is worse than the other. I wouldn’t want to live under either of them, but here’s where I see the inconsistency. The left called Pinochet a usurper, war criminal, and human rights abuser, and called for his overthrow, arrest, trial, and imprisonment. I fail to see the same demands made of Castro, whose human rights record over time is arguably far worse than Pinochet’s. The left may sometimes mildly rebuke him for locking up dissidents, but there are no calls for his ouster and appearance before the bar of justice. This double standard forces me to conclude that many on the in fact left approve of what Castro is doing.
last sentence above should read:
“This double standard forces me to conclude that many on the left in fact approve of what Castro is doing”.
“But if you’re going to call me out on Pinochet, then you better believe I’m going to call you out on Castro.”
The fundamental difference here is that FredHjr actually believes Pinochet was good and legitimate. It’s not like I said “Pinochet belongs to American conservatives and American liberals wear virginal white.” I don’t believe Pinochet belongs to the American right, but at least one member of the American right does believe so.
“The left called Pinochet a usurper, war criminal, and human rights abuser, and called for his overthrow, arrest, trial, and imprisonment. I fail to see the same demands made of Castro”
Minus, of course, a number of attempts to assassinate or overthrow Castro (all bungling failures, but attempts nonetheless) by a Democratic president.
“his double standard forces me to conclude that many on the in fact left approve of what Castro is doing.”
Again, you’re forced to infer. I’m not forced to infer; FredHjr just told me! That’s the difference here. Don’t talk to me about Castro, talk to him about Pinochet.
“The left may sometimes mildly rebuke him for locking up dissidents, but there are no calls for his ouster and appearance before the bar of justice.”
That may be because the left, with a sense of humility, understands that “calls for ouster” of various dictators are tremendously costly with a moderate chance of success at best.
“The left called Pinochet a usurper, war criminal, and human rights abuser, and called for his overthrow.”
Maybe the Chileans called for his overthrow, but I’m not aware of calls from Americans for his overthrow (though I’d be interested to learn about them if there were).
I think the key here is: you are trying to compare calls from Chileans for Pinochet’s overthrow with the absence of calls from Americans for Castro’s overthrow. Apples and oranges.
“This double standard forces me to conclude that many on the left in fact approve of what Castro is doing”.
So if the absence of criticism for a dictator indicates support, does the presence of praise for a dictator indicate support AND a man crush?
“Obama Prevaricated and People were Exterminated.”
I’m not sure if the dozens of people murdered by the Iranian regime have been “exterminated,” a term that is often (though, in my opinion, distastefully) applied to the victims of the Holocaust.
More importantly, what exactly do you believe Obama could have said or done, over the last two weeks, that would have stopped the Iranian regime from killing those people?
I’m not sure if the dozens of people murdered by the Iranian regime have been “exterminated,”
No, of course you’re not….
More importantly, what exactly do you believe Obama could have said or done, over the last two weeks, that would have stopped the Iranian regime from killing those people?
Probably nothing he said or did could have stopped it now, but his feckless and tepid response could have at least avoided a foreign policy disaster.
Did Reagan’s demand “Tear down this wall!” stop people from being killed? Yes, in the long term….
As you said: Advocating the murder of people with whom you disagree politically is the antithesis of everything for which a liberal democracy such as the United States stands.
I wish, for our country’s sake, and its moral standing that Obama could at least have said that.
I see we’ve been assigned a new resident apparatchik. Say “hey” to Dan and Rahm for us, will ya? Thanks.
Contrast Lech Walesa’s characterization of Reagan.
Do you think any Iranians are going to be lauding Obama like this, now or ever?
No. Of course not. He’s too busy eating ice cream.
Like many on the left, Shepard uses Allende and Chile as a straw man in arguments with only a minimal knowledge of Chile. I once believed as Shepard did on Chile, until I thoroughly researched the subject in both English and Spanish sources.
Shepard shouts his ignorance about Chile.
Let us parse this statement. Yes, Pinochet was a tyrant. Some of those whom his regime killed were innocent; others were combatants. For respective percentages of innocents/combatants, compare what occurred in Argentina. Pinochet was also a tyrant who respected the results of the 1988 Referendum.
“Democratically elected” is the mantra that the left applies to Allende while the left simultaneously ignores the violations of law and democratic procedure which led the also “democratically elected” House of Deputies to pass the Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy. See my previous posting. That Shepard talks about “democratically elected” Allende without reference to the conduct of Allende and his allies shows that Shepard is either woefully ignorant of what occurred in Chile, or he knows the material and is being deceitful by not presenting it. My assumption is that it is ignorance that motivates Shepard in this case. Here is another example of his ignorance.
The evidence that Allende killed himself is so strong that even Monthly Review, which nobody has ever mistaken for a right-wing publication, states that Allende killed himself. (1)
The evidence that Allende killed himself is so strong that even his daughter Isabel says her father killed himself (2). She reiterated this last year (3).
In an interview in El Mercurio, where Isabel Allende states that her father killed herself , she adds a telling detail about her father’s viewpoint. (4)
Shepard, my unsolicited advice is that if you are so concerned about Chile, then show your concern by taking the time to learn about Chile. Get thee to a library.Your statements show that you are woefully ignorant about Chile.
I will say no more on Allende. I am not interested in a debate with an ignoramus. While Allende is off-topic, I thought that others should be aware of Shepard’s ignorance about Chile.
1) http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/allende110906.html
2) http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/chile/allende-9-6-03.htm (herald reprint)
3) http://www.emol.com/noticias/todas/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=321318
4) http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={f72c8125-d463-4a86-8cef-a7c473cf169f}
Sorry, that should have read “Dave,” not “Dan.” But you knew who I meant. Whoever signs the checks.
“No, of course you’re not….”
This is about terminology, not whether innocent people have been murdered. That you insinuate otherwise indicates either that you have not been able to comprehend the simple words I have written, or that you know otherwise and still feel the need to act disingenuously, as if I am in any way sympathetic to the Iranian regime.
“I wish, for our country’s sake, and its moral standing that Obama could at least have said that.”
And I have argued that saying that or anything else like this has a very good chance in resulting in more dead people. The year is 2009, not 1989, and the country is Iran, and not a communist satellite in Eastern Europe. The communist states of eastern Europe had no history of U.S. interference in their internal affairs and the security forces of those countries had no reason to believe that popular protests were the illegitimate products of foreign interference.
Iranians have that experience. Obama is walking a careful line, I believe, with the intention of not giving the Iranian security forces reason to believe that their country is again being manipulated by foreign powers.
Bad link. Try again
http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={f72c8125-d463-4a86-8cef-a7c473cf169f}
In any event, you can find it by Googling the Isabel Allende quote in Spanish
His policy of aiding democratic movements in The Middle East in the dark days of the War on Terror meant a lot to us.
Will anyone ever say, or even think this of Obama?
Hahahahahaha! The question answers itself…..
No, Obama and his believers are toadies to Power and the Mullahs are so very powerful.
as if I am in any way sympathetic to the Iranian regime.
The communist states of eastern Europe had no history of U.S. interference in their internal affairs and the security forces of those countries had no reason to believe that popular protests were the illegitimate products of foreign interference.
Well, in sympathy to the Iranian regime, you certainly wouldn’t want to “interfere” “illegitimately” in their extermination of a democratic movement, or in their pursuit of nuclear weapons….
“Do you think any Iranians are going to be lauding Obama like this, now or ever?”
I don’t care if they laud him, and I don’t think Obama cares either. If all Obama cared about was his vanity, vice actually saving lives, he could go on TV for twenty-four hours a day, as McCain and you would have him do, and blather on and on and on and on and on, all the while accomplishing nothing but delegitimating the protests. That he’s not, when it would cost him personally nothing but time, indicates that he cares about more than appearances, unlike you.
“No. Of course not. He’s too busy eating ice cream.”
This is an interesting meme being passed around on the right. Are presidents to do nothing human while tyranny exists in the world? If not, were you complaining while Bush cleared brush while tyranny existed in…Iran?
To all (the Americans, anyway – Shepard can ignore this one) I’m reading Whittaker Chambers’ Witness now, which for some reason I’d never read before.
This book from almost 60 years ago describes in chilling detail the agitation by the Communist Party, chilling because their use of the same methods today is glaringly apparent.
So, yes, I do believe that there is a conspiracy of radicals.
Gringo,
That you feel the need to apologize for a dictatorship says all I need to know about. Fortunately, I understand that you do not represent all on the political right, though this makes two people so far on this thread who have defended a murdering, torturing, terrorist dictator.
“To all (the Americans, anyway – Shepard can ignore this one) I’m reading Whittaker Chambers’ Witness now, which for some reason I’d never read before.”
LOL. Is this supposed to make me sad =( ?
‘Well, in sympathy to the Iranian regime, you certainly wouldn’t want to “interfere” “illegitimately” in their extermination of a democratic movement, or in their pursuit of nuclear weapons….’
I’m going to assume that you simply haven’t read my post, and not that you have reading comprehension problems.
As I have stated, the regime’s center of gravity consists of the beliefs of the security forces about the legitimacy of the protests. If they believe they are illegitimate – for example, if they believe the protests are the result of foreign interference – they are more likely to crack down and protect the regime. If they believe they are legitimate, they are more likely to let them protest or, better yet, join in. My beliefs, or your beliefs, about the legitimacy of the protests is 100% irrelevant. The most important thing is whether the security forces believe they are legitimate or illegitimate, domestic or foreign. I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this.
To suggest anything else is to either grossly misunderstand or mischaracterize what I have written. I’m not sure which is worse.
Obama is walking a careful line, I believe, with the intention of not giving the Iranian security forces reason to believe that their country is again being manipulated by foreign powers.
In blind hope that they will kill less people. Oh, wait…. nevermind….
Yeah–just as I said: feckless. How did you ever think that weakness and fecklessness is a virtue that will be rewarded?
“But you can’t kill all those people, I ‘walked a fine line’. I talked about ‘robust debate’. I talked about ‘not meddling’….”
Yet they are just as many, and just as dead. At least when they died, Obama reassured them that their children will still remain shackled with no “illegitimate interference” from us.
‘My beliefs, or your beliefs, about the legitimacy of the protests is 100% irrelevant.’
Sorry, that should be “are 100% irrelevant.”
He’s just got to keep the Politburo happy. The masses don’t count.
Good point. Obama is well-known for his modesty and self-effacement.
Comrade, thanks for the agitprop. The point for those comrades who (willfully) missed it, is that there is now — for the first time — an opportunity to change things in Iran. It didn’t exist before, but this ACORNed election, and the protests it engendered, have grievously damaged the regime.
You communists excoriated Bush for reading My Pet Goat for several minutes after learning of 9/11, taking a moment to ponder instead of jumping up and running down the hall shrieking “We’re f!#%$%%ed!” But the Messiah takes two weeks before being informed by higher authority what he thinks about a momentous world event, then issues a feckless and limp written statement, and that is wise leadership. Right. Put it in the context you can relate to: would Lenin have done that? Would Stalin? No.
‘In blind hope that they will kill less people. Oh, wait…. nevermind….’
Yes. Right now, the regime is trying really, really hard to convince the security forces that the protests are the product of foreign imperialist interference. Really, really hard. And you’re suggesting that we do exactly what the Iranian government would love for us to do: tell the security forces that yes, we are totally on the side of the protesters.
This would be a disaster.
“Yet they are just as many, and just as dead.”
This is, I think, a possible moment of insight. We have very little we can do to influence events in Iran. There are just as many dead as there would be if Obama had said anything more forceful. In fact, the most influence we can have is highly negative, if we come out in support of the protests and on the side of their political demands.
‘At least when they died, Obama reassured them that their children will still remain shackled with no “illegitimate interference” from us.’
Obama’s lack of speech is not directed either at the protesters or the regime. It is directed at the security forces who can be persuaded either to fight, ignore, or support the protests.
Reagan is lauded today by Eastern Europeans for his statemenship. Obama just got his 3 am call, and voted “present.”
Future generations of Iranians will spit on Obama’s grave, probably alongside future generations of Americans.
“You communists excoriated Bush…”
I’m sorry, you must either not understand the word “communist” or have mistaken me for someone else.
The most important thing is whether the security forces believe they are legitimate or illegitimate, domestic or foreign. I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this.
You are a naif.
I’m not sure how much more plainly I can put this:
The Security Forces don’t even think like that.
They aren’t Iranian, they are shipped-in Arabs and will kill anyone to avoid having the guns turned on themselves and their families legitimately or illegitimately.
They don’t care about any ‘legitimate’ or ‘illegitimate’ nonsense. That’s why they joined the security forces of a repressive regime; torturing and killing! They can’t be reasoned with, negotiated with or appealed to, they can only be defeated or destroyed.
“But the Messiah takes two weeks before being informed by higher authority what he thinks about a momentous world event, then issues a feckless and limp written statement, and that is wise leadership. Right.”
Wait, are we liberals communists or Jews waiting for our Messiah? Or do you, like Hitler, believe the two are synonymous?
But yes, I think this was wise leadership. I think what he’s doing is designed to achieve what you would like to see, namely, political change in Iran, except that unlike your proposals, his will actually work.
Again, no matter how much you deny it, the debate among Americans overwhelmingly takes place within a consensus. We both want to see the same thing happen, but disagree about how to get there. Denying the shared American-ness (and humanity) of people with whom you disagree politically will get you nothing.
Neither is the case.
“They aren’t Iranian, they are shipped-in Arabs and will kill anyone to avoid having the guns turned on themselves and their families legitimately or illegitimately.”
This is a bit silly. There have been no confirmed reports of foreigners acting against the protesters. I tend to think this particular idea stems from a misunderstanding: Ansar-e Hizbollah has a name that sounds a lot like (Lebanese Arab) Hizbollah, but is in fact Iranian.
The Iranian regime has lots and lots of security forces: the regular armed forces, the IRGC, the Qods force, the Basij, and so forth. It has no reason to rely on foreigners…
…unless, of course, it has reason to doubt the loyalty of the security forces. Maybe, I wonder, because the security forces are reluctant to crack down on their countrymen and -women’s legitimate protests?
“Neither is the case.”
Then, please, for the benefit of all readers, please describe how you came to the conclusion that, contrary to reality, I am a communist?
“That’s why they joined the security forces of a repressive regime; torturing and killing! They can’t be reasoned with, negotiated with or appealed to, they can only be defeated or destroyed.”
Actually, I was under the impression that people join the security forces of any state for pretty much the same reason: patriotism, a pay check, a sense of responsibility and duty, etc. Obviously, there are outliers in every security apparatus – people who are sadists, etc. But, for the most part, they’re not any different from soldiers and police in any country.
Otherwise, why did we make such a show of telling the Iraqi armed forces that we were there to destroy the regime, not them?
Now, obviously the security forces contain some real ideologues. The Qods force, in particular, should be understood as die-hard regime supporters. They number, however, only a few thousand. The majority of the army are not ideologues. Even the IRGC, composed mainly of conscripts, voted overwhelmingly for Khatami in the last election, not Ahmadinejad.
Contra your assertion, most human beings can be reasoned with.
Shepard wrote, “but disagree about how to get there.”
Strength vs. Appeasment on national security.
Personal responsibility vs. lack of it when it comes to personal choices
Rule of law vs. mob mentality
Right vs. left
How to get there? You get there by making well-informed decisions. The left doesn’t. In once was a member of the left pre-1991. I know.
“Reagan is lauded today by Eastern Europeans for his statemenship.”
And Clinton is lauded by Bosnians and Albanians. Neither was a very good president. Lesson: being lauded by people does not a good president make.
Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, I’m thinking…duck.
“Looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, I’m thinking…duck.”
No, I’m really curious. Please explain my metaphorical communist looks, waddles, and quacks.
Looks like a pig, rolls around in the slop like a pig, oinks like a pig, I’m thinking… pig 😉
“Rule of law vs. mob mentality
Right vs. left ”
This one I especially like. You have at least one example in this thread of a conservative who believes that the murder of democratically elected presidents is legitimate, and yet you place rule of law squarely on the side of the right.
I wonder if you shouldn’t be focusing your ire on the conservative who actually shat all over the rule of law?
Shep,
This issue is not you. You want to make it about you.
The issue is appeasment and lack of strength in national security issues.
Obama is weak. He is weak on economic literacy. He is weak with his views on national security. He is weakening this nation.
It’s not about you.
“Looks like a pig, rolls around in the slop like a pig, oinks like a pig, I’m thinking… pig”
Goodness, the level of discourse here reaches ever greater heights of politeness and eloquence!
“It’s not about you.”
I never said it was. In fact, I have said exactly the opposite:
That Obama, far wiser than any of you, understands exactly that his most important audience is the Iranian security forces and, abandoning the chance to score cheap political points at home, has stayed mum precisely to save lives and promote political change in Iran.
Shep does the dance by saying, “This one I especially like. You have at least one example in this thread of a conservative who believes that the murder of democratically elected presidents is legitimate”
It’s not about you or any commenter here.
It’s about Obama. Not Obama vs. the commenter here.
The rule of law didn’t matter when it came to Acorn, the process for bankruptcy’s, the tax cheats, going back on a campaign pledge to McCain, etc.
Using the broad brush on the right with a commenter can only be your style.
Stick to the Democrat leadership – Barney, Dodd, Obama, Clinton’s, etc.
If we know about a conservative “leader” actually having done wrong (not just accused of it) we take care of our own and ask them to step aside.
Do you?
Rule of law.
Felons voting.
Illegal aliens voting.
Throwing out military votes and absentee ballots etc.
Shep funnily wrote, “That Obama, far wiser than any of you,”
No.
He is an economic illiterate. Period.
He is weak on national security. Georgia, Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, G’tmo, Miranda rights for … bleh
I know the liberal dance well. Move the conversation. I don’t play that.
Ok. Let’s try this another way.
Convince me, not as a foe but as a fellow American who you’d like to win over to your (dwindling) political coalition that your side is right and mine is wrong.
PS – I think a problem here is the confusion of political coalitions (which necessarily entail many and huge compromises between interest groups and diverse constituencies) with political identity.
The Democratic and Republican parties as they exist today are historical contingencies, the product of thousands upon thousands of compromises over centuries, not self-evident or natural expressions of political identity. Confusing the odd mix of positions and policies held by each party in a first past the post system with identity (ie, “strength” versus “weakness” or “rule of law” versus “mob rule”) is a fundamental though understandable error.
Quack.
I’ll characterize as I see it. I’ve been on both sides.
Truth hurts I know.
When I was exposed to an alternative viewpoint in 1991, I went to the library 3 times a week to figure out what was what.
It is my strongly held belief that Obama delayed and hoped that the protests would fizzle.
It is my belief Obama is weak on national security with the evidence of all of his ACTIONS.
His interests are not America’s interests. He weakens us and thinks he can appease and negotiate with mad men.
I’m pretty sure that the candidate Mousavi approves of Iran’s nuclear weapons’ program. What we Westerners seem to not understand is that every candidate who stands for office has already been vetted by the Mullahs. There is no genuine opposition in Iran.
This is what most frustrates me when I read articles and comments about the internal dynamics of Iran right now. It’s a stacked deck. The people protesting for Mousavi think he’s an opponent of the regime, but he’s really, pardon my liberal use of that term today on this thread, A STEALTH CANDIDATE.
Fred wrote, “It’s a stacked deck.”
So true.
“Quack.”
That’s what your argument boils down to?
“went to the library 3 times a week”
Three whole times a week?
“The people protesting for Mousavi think he’s an opponent of the regime, but he’s really, pardon my liberal use of that term today on this thread, A STEALTH CANDIDATE.”
I think the protests have, from the start, been ahead of Mousavi. That is, I get the sense that Mousavi now serves more as a rallying point for the protesters than he does as their leader.
Quack quack.
“Quack quack.”
Ever more eloquent.
Shep wrote, “Three whole times a week?”
for a full year. Had a core belief change.
My method?
Strength, personal resonsibility, rule of law, facts and figures and history vs. the previous method of liberalism. 😉
Quack quack quack, comrade.
What I think would really be wondeful is if you only ever responded to other comments as a duck would, be quacking.
It would be a delightful performance art piece, I think.
And… I will not waste my time anymore with a commenter who believes Obama is any smarter than I…
Later! Come back with reason and facts and logic.
“Strength, personal resonsibility, rule of law, facts and figures and history vs. the previous method of liberalism.”
Here’s what might blow your mind, Baklava, so hold on to your hat…
People who disagree with you also believe that they have strength and personal responsibility, adhere to rule of law, and rely on facts and figures and history.
Some have even been to the library as much, if not more so, than you have. (By that standard, wouldn’t many university professors be far wiser than you?)
My point is: perhaps, despite all your efforts (and this is not meant pejoratively), you still don’t know all there is to know. That is, both you and people who disagree with you lay claim to knowledge and all that other good stuff (rule of law). Both claim that their positions are mutually exclusive, but neither can convince the other. The conclusion I draw from this is that neither has a monopoly over truth, as no imperfect human could.
I’m a big fan of Socrates on this one.
“Come back with reason and facts and logic.”
Because you have been overflowing with them?
PS – Asserting that your side of the debate is awesome and mine is stinky is not, contrary to what you might believe, “reason and facts and logic.”
Quack on.
Shepard:
Document where I have defended murder.
Document where I have defended torture.
Document where I have defended terrorism.
This is what I said.
That you resort to such invective when I merely point out your ignorance and document your ignorance (1) using left-wing sources is a statement about your integrity. This shows why “dialogue” is futile with you.
That I concede that parts of your statement are correct (tyrant and innocents) but you are unable to concede that any parts of my statements are correct also says something. When in contrast to your statements on Chile, I document my statements, but you are unable to acknowledge that said documentation supports my statements, also says something. This also shows why “dialogue” is futile with you.
(1) Instead of ignorance on your part, it may be deceit, but in this case it is more likely ignorance, as few are well-informed about Chile, and I see you as reacting thusly because you do not like being called out on your lack of knowledge of the subject.
Gringo, it’s deceit. Trust me.
Gringo,
I thought you didn’t want to say anything more about Allende?
Gringo, the only people who give a damn about Allende are communists, because they thought they’d scored another country, only to lose yet again, and they’re still bitter about it.
Outside of Reds, there’s scarcely a person in a thousand nowadays who’s even heard of Allende. That our apparatchik brings this up at all is utterly diagnostic. The next stop is to start whining about Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.
“Gringo, it’s deceit. Trust me.”
I have done nothing but discuss here in good faith. I have been called a communist, a liar, a radical, a paid agent provocateur, a Castro sympathizer, and a few other unpleasant things.
I accused Gringo because he constructed the revolution against Allende as legitimate. I think the violent overthrow of democratically elected presidents is immoral; some people apparently don’t. Gringo also constructs “democratically elected politicians” as combatants; what he fails to explain is that they were made combatants by an illegal coup against them. Defending their overthrow by Pinochet is, in my opinion, defending Pinochet. It’s certainly not as if Pinochet was a modern Cincinnatus; he did not seize power only to hand it back to the people. He kept it for himself. I count that as (the second such example here of) sympathy with a dictator.
“the only people who give a damn about Allende are communists”
Or, perhaps, the Chilean people who suffered under his dictatorship.
That you have trouble understanding why people might be upset with a dictator, especially one escaped justice (as so many do), gives lie to anything you have to say about solidarity with the Iranian people.
“The next stop is to start whining about Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.”
One not need sympathize with a person’s political beliefs to believe their murder was unjust.
Again, your inability to recognize the humanity of people who disagree with you politically gives lie to anything you have to say about solidarity with the Iranians, and indicates that any such voices sympathy for them is really about winning political points at home.
Why is being called a communist unpleasant? Are you ashamed of it?
Lots of non-communists talk in these terms:
Might as well break into a full-throated rendition of The Internationale.
Gringo – told ya.
Jeez, maybe we were all wrong about Shepard being a paid blogger. Especially if he’s being paid by the word – nobody could afford it.
The sheer volume of his commentary is creepy and exhausting – like drinking from an unquenchable firehose (aimed from the left, of course.) Which may be the point. If it’s not coordinated, malicious verbal mayhem, what’s the explanation for it?
Perhaps he’s in treatment for logorrhea? If so, he should Step Away From The Computer. He makes Artfl look like Calvin Coolidge. This is not a slam on Artfl.
“Gringo, the only people who give a damn about Allende are communists, because they thought they’d scored another country, only to lose yet again, and they’re still bitter about it. ”
The really interesting thing here is, of course, the notion that one should only care about dictatorships in the context of one’s own political beliefs; if a dictator is on “your” side he’s ok; if he’s on the “other” side, then poo poo him all you want.
Newsflash: you can care about the victims of international terrorism, torture, and political murder, even if the dictator happened to be on the other side of the political spectrum. Sympathy for the victims of tyranny isn’t political; it’s human.
And, again: the politics of dictatorship happen so far from the politics of the American political debate that to say that a dictator is on the “right” or the “left” is, at best, a gross over generalization. Dictators like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao have as much in common with the Democratic Party as do Hitler, Mussolini, and Pinochet have with the right. Which is to say: nothing at all in common.
Unless, of course, Fred here would like to claim Pinochet for the right again.
“Might as well break into a full-throated rendition of The Internationale.”
I get the sense that you don’t know what words like “contingent” mean.
E – touche.
“solidarity” – love it.
Hands off Iran! Defend the Iranian mullahs! Join the International Committee for Peace and Justice in Iran! Say No to War, Racism and Oppression! Fight for Social Justice in America and Iran!
How’m I doing? I’m talking a Berlitz course in Commie-speak.
Speaking as a former Marxist who has long since forsaken that path, I think I got to know the mind of the socialists quite well. I believe the implementation of Communism in Chile under the auspices of Allende, who had taken actions to suspend the power of the legislature by going around it, rendering it moot, would have resulted in far more catastrophe than Pinochet ever ushered in.
I met people like Billy Ayers, who really do believe that we need some sort of “re-education” camps or programs to rid society of their individualism and capitalist ways. Ayers only expressed what many on that side inwardly think: the recalcitrant, counterrevolutionary people need a bullet to the head. Only refugees from the Left like me know that the Marxists ARE AT WAR WITH US.
I think Pinochet did Chile and the Americas a favor. And Allende at least had the good sense to put a bullet in his own brain. As awful as it truly was, it was a good thing that the Marxist activists, guerrillas, and Communist leadership were hunted down and put to death. THEY WERE AT WAR WITH WESTERN CIVILIZATION. When certain groups and individuals are at war with you, you kill them. It really is that simple.
Calling Allende a democrat who was legitimately using power is flimsy logic.
So, I agree with Gringo in his assessment of Allende. That dog got what he deserved. I only wish that today people had more testicular fortitude and would name some Leftists for what they are: Communists.
“Gringo – told ya.”
One last one. I think this is interesting – you’re really staking out the position that one need to sympathize with a person’s political beliefs to believe their murder is unjust and illegitimate?
If this were true – if you had to agree with a person’s politics to believe their murder is wrong – then moral relativism would take on a hugely new importance. Good to know where you stand on the issue of murder.
It’s amazing how the thread count goes up when Shepard’s around. In sheets this is a sign of quality – in Shepard’s case, not so much.
‘“solidarity” – love it.’
Really? You don’t think any non-communist has ever used words like “solidarity” and “contingent”?
What a sad, limited vocabulary you must restrict yourself to, else you commit a terrible thoughtcrime.
“Defend the Iranian mullahs!”
The only people here who have defended tyranny, so far, have been conservatives. The only people here who have indicated any kind of support for the Iranian regime are, of course, the people demanding that Obama do exactly what the mullahs want him to do.
“I think Pinochet did Chile and the Americas a favor.”
Like when Pinochet committed an act of international terrorism in the capital of the United States? Good to know where you stand on that issue, too.
Mussolini was an ardent Marxist, and was highly regarded by Lenin. He jettisoned the international part of Marxism after seeing Italian troops lose their lives for their country. The resulting socialism – within one country rather than within one class across countries – was…national socialism. So Mussolini and Hitler, as collectivists, have more in common with you, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
But I won’t tell the Central Committee about your political error. It was fundamental, but understandable.
More quacking.
Just give it up, and start blathering about “building mass movements” and being in the “vanguard of the working class.” You’re not fooling a soul.
“Why is being called a communist unpleasant? Are you ashamed of it?”
Why is being called a terrorist- and dictator-loving choad unpleasant? Are you ashamed of it?
At the least, I have not actually come out and said, “I’m a communist,” unlike at least one other commenter here who has actually come out and said “I love murdering, torturing, terrorist dictators.” One might think your priorities are a bit misplaced.
For the record: using words like “solidarity” do not make one a communist, else George Bush and Ronald Reagan are also communists.
Ok, just out of curiosity…
Do you think it’s possible for any of you to have a real discussion with anyone who disagrees with you about anything, or are they all communists?
“So Mussolini and Hitler, as collectivists, have more in common with you, Stalin, and Pol Pot.”
LOL. Oh man, I can see this isn’t going anywhere. I carefully made the point that, even if one could place a dictator like Hitler or Stalin on a meaningful political spectrum of “left” and “right,” they are so far removed from the American political experience that these terms become useless. And you respond by saying, more or less, that I’m just like Hitler AND Stalin AND Mussolini AND Pol Pot.
Well, I guess it’s time, then, that I revealed my true identity. Yes, I’m The Devil. The one and only. What else could I be, after that?
It’s not a matter of extent of vocabulary – it’s about selection.
You communists spend so much time proselytizing to each other that you don’t realize how stilted your language sounds to Americans and other non-communists. The issues and language in which you marinate are foreign (literally and figuratively) to Americans.
And while there’s not an American in a thousand nowadays who’s heard of Allende, there’s not one in ten thousand who’s heard of Luxemburg and Liebknecht, much less knows the back story, as you obviously do, and not one in a hundred thousand who’s upset about their fate. It’s not like they wouldn’t have killed their political enemies in a heartbeat, had they had the chance.
Left and right are meaningless terms, thanks to communist obfuscation.
The meaningful and operational distinction is between collectivists (e.g., you) and individualists (e.g., Americans) – whether the state belongs to the individuals comprising it, or vice versa.
So wait, Occam, am I to be castigated now for not knowing enough history, or for knowing too much history?
Wait, I just answered my own question. I am to be castigated for knowing the wrong history. Apologies for the crimethink.
“Left and right are meaningless terms, thanks to communist obfuscation.”
THOSE DAMN COMMUNISTS AND THEIR OBFUSCATION!
*Shakes fist helplessly at the sky.
But seriously, “left” and “right” are not meaningless terms. They are, however, meaningless if you try to use them to compare the “left” and “right” of dictators with the “left” and “right” of the American political debate. Such comparisons are only possibly linguistically, because of a quirk of the language.
George Bush is orders of magnitude more like Barack Obama than either is like Hitler or Stalin. Both agree, for example, that the murder of democratically elected presidents is wrong, something neither Hitler nor Stalin would have had a problem with.
No. You’re to be castigated for waddling. And for being a right-wing deviationist, probably a Bukharinite, and for betraying the masses by being a running dog of the ruling capitalist class.
Apart from that, you’re OK.
For the record: I’ve now had blog commenters believe they could deduce, based only on my handful of blog comments, that I was black, a Persian, and now a communist. Every single one has been wrong, and every single one has been absolutely convinced he or she was correct. Human beings are fascinating creatures.
Oh, I forgot, Jewish too. That one was wrong as well. Still, absolute belief.
Oh, this is awesome.
Black, Jewish, Persian, communist, and now, more specifically, a Bukharinite.
You know, not a lot of people know who the Bukharinites were. That’s awfully suspicious, you know, something only a stealth Bukharinite might know….
Ah, so you admit being a right-wing deviationist, and a running dog of the ruling capitalist class! /g
“Ah, so you admit being a right-wing deviationist, and a running dog of the ruling capitalist class!”
Wait, I thought I was accusing you of being a communist, not admitting to being one.
Seriously, I already admitted to being the Devil. What more do you want from me?
That you’re a commie.
It’s a formality – we know the answer – but it’ll be good for your soul to admit the truth. I’m making a presumption there, but I’ll go with it.
Oh, Great!
On Gateway Pundit, when you see the number of comments reach the triple-digits, you instantly know the thread has been hijacked for a flame war.
We really DON’T need that here. 🙁
–
No, Paul, shshsh – I haven’t been entertained like that for a long time.
The mind gymnastics are fascinating.
I think that you’re actually a communist, and that you’re accusing me falsely to throw other people off your trail.
Here’s what I think of communism: I don’t think communism could work even according to the principles of communism. By this I mean Marx’s concept of the base and superstructure – his notion that the culture and structure of a society, its superstructure, reflected its base, its means and mode of production.
In this, as a philosopher, I think Marx was right. (Though horribly wrong as an economist – I mean, labor theory of value? Come on!) A society’s superstructure DOES reflect its base. Obviously, it’s a more complicated relationship, and the two influence each other, but in general, how we produce influences how we live. Here’s just one example: in feudal society, the surplus of production – grain, basically – could not really be moved easily. So consumers of this surplus went and lived near the surplus, building large manor homes or castles to defend their surplus-producing peasants. In our society, production is very different, and surpluses can be moved easily and consumed anywhere. So we have a highly liquid labor market, in which people move around easily. We also get divorced easily – nothing to keep us stuck in any one place and freeze up the labor market. Now, this is a gross oversimplification, but I hope you get the idea – the culture of a society reflects how it produces economic utility. This isn’t too much of a stretch, right? This is basically the same argument made in The Protestant Ethic, just a little differently.
Now, Marx said: let’s take the engine of capitalism, the only system that could possibly produce enough surplus to let everyone live comfortably materially, and completely change the society around it. Easy, right? Just need a revolution, right? Wrong. Marx’s own analysis of The Economy precludes communism. Capitalism will only change when the underlying means and modes of production change – like when we get replicators or some such. Until then, Marx’s own analysis precludes communism. He wanted to leave means and modes of production alone and change distribution – but he had already concluded that distribution was a function of means and modes of production. FAIL.
So, even if I were a Marxist, which I’m not, I couldn’t be a communist.
Shepard:
I wonder what you would have said about the attempts to murder Adolf Hitler, who came to power in Germany through democratic and constitutional means. There are times when murdering a democratically elected leader seems the most moral choice among many bad ones.
Plus, I’m sure you are not as naive as you sound about how elections are often carried out in third world countries or dictatorships. Witness the current situation in Iran, where but for the protests, Ahmadinejad would be considered to have been democratically re-elected. In fact, even now some (even in this country) assert that Ahmadinejad won the election. Does that mean he cannot be rebelled against? What an absurdity that would be.
As for Allende (who was most definitely no Hitler), he received about 36% of a vote split fairly evenly among three parties, and was (in line with the Chilean constitution) actually elected by the Chilean National Congress, which was required to choose between the two lead candidates. He was indeed democratically elected, but received nowhere near a plurality of Chilean votes and then proceeded to take it as a mandate to nevertheless revolutionize Chile along hard Left lines.
Allende’s election, however, was also a behind-the-scenes battle between Cold War powers—the USSR and the US. Both were involved in financing their favored candidates. However, the USSR was more heavily involved than the US, and their candidate—Allende—got the lead in the popular vote, although barely. Does the fact that Allende was heavily helped by USSR propaganda matter? If the US had invested more money in its campaign to help his opponents, would that have made the election more democratic or less?
And then there’s this: in order to obtain the votes of those he needed in the Chilean Congress to actually win and take power, Allende signed an agreement to respect the constitution. However, in 1973 (not long before the Pinochet coup) the Chilean Congress condemned Allende as being in violation of the constitution—does this matter to you? (see this and this and this among the many sources available on Allende’s career).
We could go on and on with this. The Left certainly has a different story about Allende than the one I have just told—he is a hero foully murdered, rather than a tyrant and economic oppressor whose people rose up and removed him (as well as a suicide). Pinochet (who definitely was a violently repressive guy against the opposition), likewise—two opposing tales.
You, by the way, have been acting as a troll in this thread—although, for the moment I am tolerating your presence. Being a troll has nothing to do with mere disagreement in a discussion, by the way.
One of the many things trolls do is attempt to dominate a conversation by continually bringing up other issues which require lengthy explanations outside of the topic matter at hand. The idea is to both dominate a thread and cause everyone on it to spend a great deal of time and energy rehashing old (and ultimately insoluble) topics such as Allende vs. Pinochet. Tone is also very important in deciding who is a troll and who is not.
I recommend, by the way, if you’re interested in doing any reading, my post here about the dilemma faced by the Shah as far as suppressing an opposition violently opposed to him (see also this for a related post). The dilemmas faced by leaders in countries with very dedicated and hardline (and violent) oppositions are quite different from what we have experienced for the most part in the US—at least so far. We are quite spoiled in that respect in this country; our differences are quite polite and mild compared to the situation in so many other countries.
Thank you for that little disquisition on historical materialism.
I feel vindicated.
I also feel I need to apologize to the others on the thread for my tendentiousness, but for some reason I wasn’t in the mood to let this pass unopposed.
“I wonder what you would have said about the murder of Adolf Hitler, who came to power in Germany through democratic and constitutional means. There are times when murdering a democratically elected leader seems the most moral choice among many bad ones.”
I’ve already made a comment about this – first, that Hitler was not democratically elected as Chancellor, and second, that he is an extreme outlier that cannot be used to justify the murder of elected leaders with whom one disagrees. I’ll even make a third – by banning all future elections, Hitler precluded any other means by which he could be removed from power, other than through violence.
“I’m sure you are not as naive as you sound about how elections are often carried out in third world countries or dictatorships.”
This is exactly why I have clearly stated that one cannot justify the murder of a democratically elected president.
“You, by the way, have been acting as a troll in this thread.”
Any more so than the people here who have flirted with calling for the murder of president Obama, or who have accused me of being a communist?
If you’ll note, I made several attempts to get the conversation back on track. I was not the one who decided to turn this into a lengthy debate of how one can know a communist by his or her use of words like “contingent” or “solidarity.”
Regarding the issue of such a dilemma, I’ll only point out that most of the research on domestically-led peaceful regime change hints that such change is virtually unknown if the security forces side with the regime. The goal must, then, be to find ways of peeling away those security forces.
It was rumored, for example, during the 1997 student riots that all that stood between the regime and its overthrow were the 2,000 loyal Qods thugs. The rest were so unreliable that the regime did not even call them in.
“I feel vindicated.”
You have no reason to be. Knowing things about Marx does not make one a Marxist. It is not, no matter how much you’d like, a thoughtcrime.
“One of the many things trolls do is attempt to dominate a conversation by continually bringing up other issues which require lengthy explanations outside of the topic matter at hand.”
Such as, for example, accusing a person of being a Bukharinite?
as discovered through the mitrokhen archives…
National leaders who cooperated with the KGB
Salvador Allende provided political intelligence to the Soviet Union through “his own emissaries” in Latin American countries. He also reorganized Chile’s intelligence along lines suggested by the KGB. Historian Christopher Andrew argued that financial support through the KGB channels probably played a decisive role for Allende’s victory during the Chilean presidential election, 1970
so much for democratically elected…
is he elected if the elections are fixed sheppard?
nope… so your whole point crumbles once the truth about allende is out… and its a truth from the socialists!!! that is he got crimped cause he was a puppet of the KGB.
many many of the left have had to eat their own crap cause they didnt know that their secrets would ever be revealed. but they were, not only by such defectors as mitroken, but by otehrs like sejna, golitsyn, and dont forget lots of decoded transcripts.
How ‘weak’ Allende was left out in the cold by the KGB
In the second exclusive extract from The Mitrokhin Archive Volume II, the historian Christopher Andrew and KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin
reveal how the Soviet Union influenced the rise and fall of the first democratically elected Marxist leader
Read the first extract of The Mitrokhin Archive Volume II here
Kuznetsov arranged his regular meetings with Allende through the President’s personal secretary, Miria Contreras Bell, known as La Payita and codenamed Marta by the KGB. La Payita was Allende’s favourite mistress during his presidency. Kuznetsov reported that Allende was spending “a great deal of time” in her company. “His relationship with his wife has more than once been harmed as a result.” Despite Allende’s affairs, however, his wife, Hortensia, remained intensely loyal to him. Kuznetsov did his best to cultivate her as well as her husband.
In October 1971, on instructions from the Politburo, Allende was given $30,000 “in order to solidify the trusted relations” with him. Allende also mentioned to Kuznetsov his desire to acquire “one or two icons” for his private art collection. He was presented with two icons as a gift.
sigh
“And now in this country a stealth election and candidate is in the process of being outed.”
So, having established that you believe “stealthiness” legitimates political violence
no, fraud, a crime that USES stealthyness is the criminal action.
and if a criminal obtains a political office by misrepresenting themselves (committing fraud), then that person should be removed from office.
the problem is that when a despot takes office, he does not allow himself (or herself) to be beholden ot the same laws.
that is allendes dirty men killed for him.. but that was illegal killing. if anyone legally said.. you commited fraud, he would not have said… my bad, let me step down..
so your argumetn is a game of wipsaw words… no one ever said that they were applying allende to the other situatation
if obama took office under the same pretenses as allende, then he violated his oath of office an should step down.
regime change through stealh fraud is only valid to marxists like sheppard. (crypto or not)
He makes Artfl look like Calvin Coolidge. This is not a slam on Artfl.
really? well, that depends on whether you like coolige, ed?
i may spout a lot, but its by virtue of us taking on some very complex conversations in which there are huge books… yoiu do see that i can write less, when the answer is short… but when the answer is completely off the radar, i end up having to explain or background a lot of stuff.
otherwise much earlier i would just mention that we forgot what we were taught about mitrokhen.
sheppard is a troll..
he is what they call Agit Prop. 🙂
Shepard: your exemption of Hitler doesn’t wash. Your definition of “democratically elected” is defined the way you wish to define it in order to make your point.
Mine is: Hitler became Chancellor through a process that was just as constitutional as that of Allende; neither of them won anywhere near a majority, but their ascensions to power were in line with the constitutions of their respective countries (here, by the way, is Hitler’s story).
As I said, your behavior here is that of a troll. I could take a lot of time explaining why I say that, but I’m sure you would disagree. At any rate, you’ve taken up enough of my time and my patience already.
Good point. Gotta follow the Party line here, or else off to the gulag.
Western intelligence agencies suspected Allende maintained connections to the Soviet Union even before Augusto Pinochet’s military Junta deposed him. But Mitrokhin’s documents vividly detail KGB support for Allende as presidential candidate and leader. Moscow gave Chile’s communist party $400,000 during the 1970 election and $50,000 to Allende. The CIA gave $425,000 to Allende’s opponents. After his victory, Allende, codenamed LEADER, continued to receive tens of thousands of dollars in payments. He also asked for–and received–two pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox icons. KGB propagandists even popularised a particularly brutal and heroic account of Allende’s death.
In the central Asian nation, the KGB was brutal, unleashing an Afghan secret police akin to Stalin’s NKVD. In India, meanwhile, the KGB infiltrated and provided monetary support to Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party, pouring millions of rupees into propaganda and dirty tricks to discredit her opponents.
The best passages in the book, though, describe more arcane KGB operations in the Third World. The chapters on KGB spy work in Africa include KGB plots containing almost as much Cold War kitsch as a James Bond film. During the Algerian Revolution, the KGB planted a story in the Italian press claiming the CIA sponsored a French military putsch to stall De Gaulle’s peace talks. The story even made its way into the pages of Le Monde. In operations codenamed DEFEKTOR 3 and DEFEKTOR 4, the KGB disinformation machine used fabricated documents to convince the dictators of Guinea and Mali that CIA agents had plotted their overthrow. During the American Civil Rights Movement, KGB agents in New York sent racist letters purporting to be from American white supremacists to African UN delegates.
and their buying houses as whites, and then moving blacks into them, then blowing them up was another interesting thing.
or the bombings in ny where the jews and african neighborhoods met each other while blaming the JDL…
all now known history…
Relations with President Allende of Chile, for example, began in 1953 and were elevated to “systematic contact” after 1961. During his years of power meetings were often arranged through his favourite mistress, along with sex films and associated cavortings. On one occasion he was personally given $30,000 in order to “solidify trusted relations”, on another $400 for “valuable information”.
Relations with Castro were more troubled. To start with, he was an affluent landowner who took no interest in Communism until in power (although his brother Raul was more sympathetic). Then, having sided with the Soviet Union, he became embarrassingly supportive, comparing the election of President Reagan with that of Hitler and suggesting the redeployment of Soviet missiles to Cuba if US cruise missiles were sent to Europe. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the coup plotters against Gorbachev.
Meanwhile, KGB Active Measures campaigns flourished throughout the world’s media, ranging from the widely-believed CIA-started-Aids story to the alleged kidnapping of Latin American children for US spare part surgery (a story taken up by the Jehovah’s Witnesses).
There is much else in this well-written and often ironically amusing work, making it as great a credit to the scholarship of its author as to the dedication and courage of its originator. It convincingly demonstrates that any assessment of 20th-century international relations that does not include the intelligence dimension is one-legged, at best. And, as Christopher Andrew points out, the SVR – the KGB’s successor – flourishes still.
In the KGB’s view, Allende’s fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure.
The first attempt to overthrow the regime was made by activists of the extreme right-wing Patria y Libertad movement. The Santiago residency informed the centre that it had obtained intelligence on plans for the coup and warned Allende. On June 28, however, three combat groups of tanks and armoured cars with about 100 troops left their barracks and headed for the centre of Santiago. The coup petered out in farce. “The column obeyed all the traffic lights and at least one tank stopped to fill up at a commercial gas station.”
The most significant aspect of the failed coup was the apathetic response to it by Chilean workers. Allende broadcast an appeal for “the people . . . to pour into the centre of the city” to defend his Government. They did not do so. That highly significant fact was duly noted by the army chief of staff, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarre.
The KGB later complained that Allende paid too little attention to its warnings of an impending disaster. When Pinochet and a junta launched their coup in the early hours of 11 September, the Communist leadership, who had also been kept informed by the KGB, were better prepared than Allende. The Communist Party newspaper that morning carried the banner headline, “Everyone to his combat post!” “Workers of city and countryside” were summoned to combat “to repel the rash attempt of the reactionaries who are determined to bring down the constitutional Government”. Communist factory managers began to mobilise workers in the industrial belt.
Allende, however, failed to live up to his promise six weeks earlier to summon the people to arms to defend his regime. Instead of seeking support in the working-class areas of Santiago, he based himself in the presidential offices in La Moneda, where he was defended by only 50 to 60 of his Cuban-trained guards and half a dozen officers from the Servicio de Investigaciones. Allende’s lack of preparation to deal with the coup partly derived from his preference for improvisation over advance planning. His French confidant, Régis Debray, later claimed that he “never planned anything more than 48 hours in advance”.
But Allende was also anxious to avoid bloodshed. Convinced that popular resistance would be mown down by Pinochet’s troops, he bravely chose to sacrifice himself rather than his followers. Castro and many of Allende’s supporters later claimed that he was gunned down by Pinochet’s forces as they occupied La Moneda.
In reality, it seems almost certain that, faced with inevitable defeat, Allende sat on a sofa in the Independence Salon of La Moneda, placed the muzzle of an automatic rifle (a present from Castro) beneath his chin and blew his brains out.
Artfldgr: for those who wish to access the Timesonline article on Allende and the KGB,Neo has provided the link. I do not see the point of copying/pasting massive quantities of the article onto the thread.
Artfldgr,
You had better be careful, or you might be banned for trolling.
JUST KIDDING! You can keep doing exactly what you’re doing, so long as you agree with everyone.
Shepard, at 3:12 P.M.
That was a pretty good exposition of some of the weaknesses of Marxist theory. For the record, I never accused YOU specifically of being a Communist. Or even a Marxist. I don’t know what you are and presume not to. I merely took up the strand left dangling earlier about the horrible crimes of Pinochet. I tried to present Pinochet as a man of his time reacting to events that were set in motion by the Communists. Was Pinochet a thug? At times, yes. Were innocents along with the guilty put to death? Yes, unfortunately and tragically that was the case. Would leaving Allende in office have been the better end for Chile and its people? My contention is that the future under Allende and other Communists following him would have been nasty, brutish, and devolving into squalor.
I think Allende would have gone the same route as Castro, and later, Hugo Chavez. It would have been the end to democracy in Chile.
No, as far as I’m concerned I’m glad Pinochet hunted down the Communists and had them killed. They were traitors working, albeit indirectly, in the employ of the Soviets. Including the useful idiots among them.
Finally, people Left-of-Center abroad have no idea of the scorn and revilement that Americans have for people like the State Department employee, Mr. Myers and his wife, who so hated their country and capitalism that they worked for the Communists for over three decades. Were it up to me, I’d have a gallows build and they’d be disposed of the old-fashioned way.
FredHjr,
Here’s the deal: we all like freedom, democracy, liberty, and so forth. These are, as George Bush said, universal human aspirations. What I think you need to do is not say “Pinochet COULD be a thug but also did good stuff too.” I think you need to say, above all else, that he was a murderous, torturing dictator who committed acts of international terrorism on U.S. soil, and that you condemn all that. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like your adherence to things like rule of law and democracy are (here’s that word again!) contingent rather than fundamental.
Conservatives can’t have it both way, both fetishizing liberty AND sympathizing with right-of-center dictators.
You’re also wrong about the Myers: treason is treason, and most people anywhere understand that. Though I am opposed to the death penalty, I sympathize with your desire to see them hanged by their necks until they are dead.
The thing about Allende, as I was just reading moments ago, that is something for Americans to think about: Allende began a program of nationalizing several large industries.
Does that sound familiar?
He called it “Chile’s Path to Socialism.”
And what have we been witnessing here during the first six months of the administration of another man from the Far Left?
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” You learned well, grasshopper.
But also note: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
Occam,
I did notice the application of the Alinsky rule in that response. In fact, I notice it often used by people on the Left – many of whom learned it from someone else. Many who use it don’t know where it comes from. I rather suspect that “Shepard” is a Soft Left person from another anglophone country, maybe Canada. Could be U.K., Australia, or New Zealand. In a couple of his responses he used the phrase “the Americans” which tells me he is not one of us.
I have a friend, who happens to be a cousin of mine, who inhabits the Far Left out in Oakland, CA. He quite unconsciously uses that Alinsky Rule often. I figure he picked it up in high school or college (he was a campus radical back in the early Seventies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA).
But I am not going to call “Shepard” a Marxist or a Communist, because I don’t have enough info. or clues that would warrant me doing this. As I said, I’ve known non-Marxists to use Alinsky Rules for Radicals. In fact, the widespread use of them only argues well for the case that what Yuri Bezmenov is talking about in his video clips re. the demoralization of the West is right on the money.
I don’t think I romanticized Augusto Pinochet at all. I acknowledged aspects of his regime that certainly can be characterized as brutal. But I just happen to agree with him having Communists killed. I won’t apologize for that view.
Fred, years in Berkeley made my antennae pretty sensitive to communists. (Amazing they didn’t blow up.)
I look to use of language. Anyone trotting out the stock stilted phrases, arguments (e.g., Pinochet – for God’s sake), and tactics (a la Alinsky) is operationally noted in my book as a communist.
Not to say that all such subscribe to that religion in all of its arcane complexity, or even understand it. Quite the contrary, few do. (Mastering communist theology is as tedious and pointless as mastering astrology, in my view.)
But I think it’s important to strip the mask of plausibility and respectability away from such people and expose them for what they are: purveyors of agitprop. Their bleatings about “democracy” and “humanity” represent another application of Alinsky’s rule above, since they themselves wouldn’t bat an eyelash before crushing democracy and exterminating inconvenient portions of humanity.
Gringo,
I agree… but when i dont paste them, the ones most likely to argue dont go read it. people like you, who are more discerning tend to check it out if its interesting, and not if not.
sorry…. i tend to drive the nail into the next board.
It’s disturbing to me that between 12:04 AM and 4:40 PM today Shepard has managed to make 71 out of the 184 responses on this thread. That’s close to 40% of the comments here.
Quantity is no substitute for substance. And pulling the wings off flies is really only entertaining for the tormentor. Aren’t folks like Shepard supposed to be against torture? What’s going on here is a kind of verbal waterboarding.
Reading over the discussion, it strikes me how often the glossalalic Shepard manages to re-phrase, re-state, and pervert what people have said here in making his arguments.
Is this in order to “change minds,” as he claimed on another post? I’m not persuaded. Saying outrageous things louder and louder and LOUDER is not a good way to persuade people. It is annoying, however.
Hat tip to Shepard for borrowing an idea from another thread – criticizing his tendency to distract and steer people off topic – as an attack against other commentors here. Neatly done! And, you’re busted.
I must admit to a soft spot in my heart for Stalin: So many of his victims were leftists. They made their bed and I’m sure someday ours will sleep just as permanently.
sheppard,
JUST KIDDING! You can keep doing exactly what you’re doing, so long as you agree with everyone.
well, thats very not true. i am generally the devils advocate and have interesing alternative views. but i seldom agree with everyone, and none here requires you do.
its not that one disagrees, its ones methods of disagreement and ones methods of trying to win, mass confusion by kitchen sinking is not liked by anyone except the idiot who thinks that by jaming so much down and confusing things because it only takes a few lines to ask a quesiton that takes a book of an answer.
its a stupid technique, and is only used by those smart enough to employ it… but its a short circuit. they never actually understand what they are spouting, as they are only looking for its value in spouting, not in its value as real information.
you can see that when you see the subjects grabbed and thrown… its often like a woman from a 1950s movie who throws everything at the other person, as it smashes on the wall.
thing is that if everyone here wanted agreement, then you would never have gotten this far… that is, your game requires our tolerance.
It’s one reason I refused to substantively engage his arguments, but rather dismissed them out of hand. I can dismiss rubbish faster than (even) he can generate it. It turns the fire hose principle around against those who employ it.
Occam,
If Chilean society was on high alert after Allende moved to nationalize several industries, then that means that the Chileans of that era were more informed and engaged citizens than Americans are.
Obama’s moving quickly to nationalize several industries. And for the most part we hear crickets chirping.
Maybe they didn’t have “Chilean Idol,” or similar trash, to distract them.
Here’s the deal: we all like freedom, democracy, liberty, and so forth. These are, as George Bush said, universal human aspirations.
Apparently not: “It doesn’t matter who wins this election. What is important is the fact that there was a robust debate.”
Shep, it still sounds to me like you are defending Obama’s fecklessness because it may appeal to the tender mercies and conscience of the Republican Guard.
‘Cuz after all “….for the most part, they’re not any different from soldiers and police in any country.”
This has got to be a parody of a wooly-minder, one-world, dictator-loving, Mullah-sniffing, bedwetting, feckless, cowardly, tepid lefty. No one can actually think like this….
We just don’t live in the same world.
Gray,
I’ll point you to this article from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a right-of-center think tank:
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3076
“The May 1997 election of reformist candidate Muhammad Khatami to the presidency put further stress on civil-military relations. Though senior IRGC officers had endorsed his conservative opponent (Majlis speaker Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri), credible post-election press reports indicated that IRGC personnel voted for Khatami in even greater proportions than did the general population (73 percent versus 69 percent).
This indicates that the IRGC — a military organization long thought to have been a bastion of support for conservative hardliners — was in fact riven by the same divisions as Iranian society. This, perhaps, should not have come as a surprise, due to the fact that for the past two decades, the IRGC has increasingly come to rely on conscripts to meet its manpower needs, due to a drastic decline in volunteers. This raised questions about the political reliability of the IRGC should it be needed to quell popular unrest. “
That is, your insults aside, I think you’re mixing up the rank-and-file of the IRGC with its leadership. The regime’s position has been very precarious for some time. Convincing those security forces that the protests are legitimate is key here.
I wonder whether this “Not helping is the best way to help” story is going to convince anyone who isn’t looking to be fooled. Sort of like “Freedom is Slavery” or “War is Peace,” perhaps.
Shoop, the Shepard Sockpuppet, from your link:
And while the Basij is probably more thoroughly vetted than other mass organizations (due to the role of local clerics and mosques in the recruitment process), it is hard to believe that its membership is insulated from the broader political forces at work in Iranian society today.
No, it’s not hard to believe.
His non-conclusions are based on information from 8-10 years ago with an admission that the Basij has become the “Guardian of the Regime” under Amadinejad, a former basij.
He further talks about importing muscle when the local Fascisti waiver.
He comes close to making a point, but never really does. How do I know? I used to be an Army Intell Officer as well. BFD….
The fact the writer was an adviser to the Iraq Study Group Surrender Committee doesn’t recommend him.
“Maybe they will just play nice if we are nice to them” is the definition of a feckless foreign policy.
Convincing those security forces that the protests are legitimate is key here.
F’in please…. The average Anthropoid from the outskirts of Qom aren’t exactly schooled in Locke.
“Mr Ahmedinejad, tear down this wall, or leave it up if you want. We don’t want to appear as meddling. And we are sorry. Very, very sorry. Please try not to shoot too many women and children.”
Having said that, and enjoyed the way I said it: If the IRGC and Basij schism and portions end up fighting loyalists and supporting reform, I will eat every delicious word.
It would be wonderful if it happened, but Obama’s “softly, softly” policy on shooting protestors tells me we have no one on the inside, no idea what is going to happen, no HUMINT inside the Basij of IRGC and are just hedging our bets so as not to kick the ass we will have to kick later.
I prefer a muscular American policy that at least pays lip-service to Human Rights and Liberty in other countries if not outright defeating tyranny.
No one bleats and pisses harder than the dirty, dirty Left when we remove A Boot from the neck of The Peoples.
“kiss the ass we will have to kick later.”
Or vice-versa, I don’t care…. Either way, it’s feckless.
Wretchard really nails it here:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/06/22/the-kiss-of-death/#more-4650
How does one reconcile the fear of irking Iran by supporting the students with the openness to dealing with Hezbollah, a sworn subverter of the Lebanese state? ….
Smith makes the argument that liberalism isn’t really as popular as one might think with the intelligensia; that of late a perverse infatuation with fascism and a deeply illiberal attraction for the strong horse exists where we would least suspect it.
He’s talking about you, Mr Snarky Shep-puppet.
Gray,
Check out my response on Wretchard’s blog discussion you called our attention to. #14
My point is that we have no right to let these tragically flawed and vicious totalitarian youngsters burn down the achievement of millenia. We have to render an accounting for our deeds and what we failed to do to our Creator. Cowardice is no excuse. These terrible people must be stopped, by whatever means necessary. And I do mean that.
““The Pinochet regime hung on to power much longer than was necessary, but did relinquish power eventually. Today, Chile is a democratic government and a prosperous society.”
As is Germany, but one does not use this datum to justify Hitler.”
Totally false historical analogy by Shepard, unless he is in possession of some information that I’m not aware of that the US had to invade and bomb the crap out of Chile to get rid of Pinochet and then occupied it for decades to install a democratic (small d) government.
At the time I thought that OB was a little hard on old Shep, but in retrospect I see the validity of his approach.
Old Shep’s approach did have some similarity with Communist agitprop.
1) Keep hammering, keep repeating.
2) Never concede that your opponent may have some valid points, but insist that your opponent admit the validity of your points.
3) Instead of discussing a subject, which would involve actually admitting that your opponent might have some validity, keep hammering your point.
4) Misrepresent your opponent’s position.
That has a lot of similarity with Communist agitprop, as I recall the genre.
Gringo.
Good points. If you want to see them on steroids, try disagreeing with a post on a femblog.
Especially the part about misrepresenting the position you have taken.
But the fems have gone Alinsky one better. Or did he have a chapter on spluttering obscenities?