I just have a problem with his secret service assasinating a refugee in Washington, DC by blowing up his car at Sheridan Circle.

You can support Pinochet's ends and still want him to face justice for his means--even if they were the only ends available.

Oops. That should be "only *means* available."

It's long past time he saw the inside of a jail cell.

No. A hero, as Franco was a hero. I learned about the Spanish Civil War in grade school--not the Abraham Lincoln Brigade side, however. No one who brings his country back from the edge of Red terror is a criminal. You would do whatever it takes.

If you think this is wrong, then it was fortunate for the world that you were not running the country for the last 50 years. Every American president from Truman to Bush 41 has faced the Red terror with the superior terror of countervalue nuclear capability. By the grace of God and our strong right arm, it has prevailed.

"No. A hero, as Franco was a hero...By the grace of God and our strong right arm, it has prevailed."

That's obscene. In both cases the "Red terror" wasn't an evil that Pinochet or Franco confronted, but a competitor to their intended thrones. And their sympathies, if either had any beyond themselves, were for kleptocratic ruling classes that stood to lose the most, in the short term, from any new order, much less a Socialist one. Given the opportunity, both would just as well have subverted a liberal democracy for their own ends.

You may wish to argue that they averted even greater evils: fine. But they are hardly heroes. In recognition of their contributions to history, perhaps we should merely spit in their faces, instead of kicking them in the groin.

Ali:

If the figure of 4,000 is accurate, why would the decision on this be anything other than an entirely Chilean matter? In what sense does the international community have an interest here? We are an awfully long way from genocide.

--both would just as well have subverted a liberal democracy for their own ends.--

Would have or did?

Pinochet created a working free market economy with virtually no corruption, an economy that was the envy of Latin America, and much of the developing world. Many would-be rulers like Lebed have cited him as a role model.

So what if he killed a few Commies and fellow travellers?

I think M Bulger is incorrect. Unlike the Communists in E. Europe, Pinochet gave up power willingly. He had a plebiscite and it voted for a return to democracy. And then he left. Now I'm sure it was not the result Pinochet expected or wanted, but he did step down. If it was not for Allende's attempt to lead a Marxist revolution, I think it highly unlikely Pinochet and the military would have intervened.

As for the question of Pinochet's prosecution, this is an internal matter for Chile to decided. They need to come to terms with their own history. Still, if they do try Pinochet, it is probably to their credit - unlike all those who have excused various Communists from coming to the trial throughout the world.

Peter:

And I hope the Chileans do the right thing.

If it wasn't for Franco, western Europe would have been behind the iron curtain. It's really amazing. Right wing dictators who step down and leave their countries on the road to democracy are bad. Left wing dictators who destroy their countries and plunge their people into grinding never-ending poverty and despair are given a pass.

and how many more would have died if the so-called-socialists had been allowed to remain in power ? compare the situation in chile with the "worker's paradise" in the carribean. of course, those bleating about pinochet don't give a fig about people dying, their tears are reserved for the only loss they truly feel, the loss of power.

val e-diction 7/20/03(?)posting The Allende Myth

M:

No, Franco and Pinochet were objectively heroes, leaving behind better societies than they inherited and better than their neighbors.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/693/Hitler%20Stopp.htm

Until people demand rough justice for Castro, Mugabe, the "Dear Leader", and probably a dozen other monsters out there, nothing they say about Pinochet, Franco, Fujimori, or even de Klerk has any moral relevance whatsoever.

In 1983, on the 10th anniversary of the coup (Sept 11, I think), I was in Santiago. While I was there, a 3-car motorcade carrying the chief of police was ambushed. He and most of his bodyguards were killed. I watched the endless coverage on TV from a hotel room; the actual attack took place less than a mile away.

Years later I found myself in an on-going debate, where I took the side of Pinochet and the other fellow took the side of Castro. I listened to his arguments, I refuted his accusations, I came away more convinced than ever that General Pinochet did what he had to do to save his country.

Many Democrats in this country argue that George W Bush doesn't have a real mandate, since the country is still split roughly 50-50. But in Chile, Salvador Allende claimed a mandate with only a35% or 36% plurality; his party was in the minority in the parliament; yet he still tried to use his power to convert Chile from a center-left regime to a hard-left regime. With the support of Cubans, Russians, East Germans, etc.

A civil war did not have to happen. Allende made it happen. The Chilean Left made it happen -- they had a taste of power, they wanted more, they could never achieve their ends via the ballot box, and they were not content to be merely a Loyal Opposition.

I have no doubt that some of the 2700-3000 people, who were killed during and after the coup, were innocent. But most were not. Most of them were willing to kill so that Chile would be a Marxist state. They did not control the army, so they fought a guerrilla war. And they lost. As a result, Chile has been a model for Latin America, and not just another socialist basket-case like Cuba.

Final comment: I pay close attention to how General Pinochet is addressed in the media. If he is described as "former strongman" or "former dictator," while Castro is always "president," then I know it's not inadvertent. Even if you accept that General Pinochet was responsible for those 2700 deaths, then what of Castro, who has been responsible for at least ten or twenty times that number of deaths? And who is still throwing his political enemies into prison -- while General Pinochet relinquished power following his electoral defeat. When will there be free elections in Cuba? When will the Europeans clamor for Castro's arrest for human-rights abuses?

M. Bulger seems to think the what had been happening in Spain was something other than a Red terror. This is incorrect. Almost any recent source on the subject will tell us how the "progressives" in Spain were progressing from secularization to repression to persecution.

It's the same old Commie line: 51% is a mandate to transform society, and if burned churches and raped nuns are not to your liking, why then, you are "undemocratic."

You know, I was a Marine Corps officer during the 70's and 80's, mostly in aviation units, and studied war from that perspective. The power we relied on to keep the Communists in line until they folded--our superior terror--was a lot punchier than what the Condor Legion used on Guernica.

[The trap is set.]

In Spain, the failure of the French and British to support the duly elected government of the nation caused the center to collapse and extremist, irrational violence to take the upper hand. There were Republicans who were not leftist idiots, like Azana, Alvarez and Companys. The ascension of the Soviet catspaw, Juan Negrin, is proof positive of the fall of the rational left. A rereading of Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is in order for those who love Franco.

Bart:

Orwell realized he fought on the wrong side--it turned him into a conservative.

Orwell disapproved of totalitarians and imperialists of left and right. He never left the Labour Party, the Labour Party left him.

Bart:

That's simply false:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1241/

4000 revolting Reds removed from the planet? That's a bad thing?

Tom C. --

That use of 'revolting' works both ways.

It's really amazing. Right wing dictators who step down and leave their countries on the road to democracy are bad. Left wing dictators who destroy their countries and plunge their people into grinding never-ending poverty and despair are given a pass.

A number of years ago, Milton Friedman wrote a letter to a national newspaper asking why his recent visit to China to offer that nation's leaders economic advice (the usual stuff: de-regulate your economy, promote private enterprise, etc.) had not promoted a flurry of protests like his visit to Chile to advise Allende (for exactly one hour) had done.

I remember thinking: "You know damn well why not!" Friedman surely did, too -- he was just having fun rubbing the Left's face in its own hypocrisy.

It's not about, and never has been about, "the people." It's about control.

Whoops -- meant to say "Pinochet," not "Allende," in the above example.