NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush: Made a speech last year in which he criticized the long-standing U.S. policy of supporting friendly dictatorships, rather than truly supporting democratization throughout the world.
George Bush is a hypocrite! (OK, I wasn't surprised either.)

The US Government continues to support the new Haiti dictatorship. They have refused to meet with other Carribean countries unless they stop criticising this support. The US may have even helped the current military dictatorship to come to power.

Former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has charged the US with forcing him from power at gunpoint. US Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed that as 'absurd'. But there is growing international disquiet. As with the unsuccessful US-endorsed coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in April 2002, Washington faces charges that it is reverting to Cold War tactics to dispose of leaders it does not fancy.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1163799,00.html

also see

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1164195,00.html

for more enforced hegemony and DC flip-flops!

Bush is trying to overthrow democracy in Venezuala for oil too

And the US once supported Saddam Hussein, as well as coups in Guatamala, Brazil, and Chile.

Bush is trying to overthrow democracy in Venezuala for oil too
And the US once supported Saddam Hussein, as well as coups in Guatamala, Brazil, and Chile.
Communist lies!!! The US is the pinnacle of decency and moral superiority. :p

And the US once supported Saddam Hussein, as well as coups in Guatamala, Brazil, and Chile.
ALL of latin america actually

Communist lies!!! The US is the pinnacle of decency and moral superiority. :p
the face of the USA abroad is one of facism

the face of the USA abroad is one of facism
Another communist lie!!! :D Saddam had WMD's and he supported terrorists and the US invaded Iraq to free the people. ;) And now Iraq is safe and peacefull.

Intelligent replies, please.

Is Von Witzleben being sarcastic?

Another communist lie!!! :D Saddam had WMD's and he supported terrorists and the US invaded Iraq to free the people. ;) And now Iraq is safe and peacefull.
those are hideous Bush lies ;)

those are hideous Bush lies ;)
Bush doesn't lie!!! He's to stupid to make it sound convincing.

the face of the USA abroad is one of facismat least that of the president and the 50456002 people who voted for him...

Is Von Witzleben being sarcastic?

Looks like it to me. And if he's being sarcastic, then I share his viewpoint.

"America still fighting democracy"

Feh, I'm not surprised at our leaders' incompetence - After all they've been doing this around the world all because the democratic leader didn't agree with our foregin policy 100%

Grr . . . I hate you Kissinger - thanks to you, the Democracy in Chile became a Dictatorship!

the face of the USA abroad is one of facism

Blood pressure...rising...

"America still fighting democracy"

Feh, I'm not surprised at our leaders' incompetence - After all they've been doing this around the world all because the democratic leader didn't agree with our foregin policy 100%

Grr . . . I hate you Kissinger - thanks to you, the Democracy in Chile became a Dictatorship!


And Chile is now the most successful South American Country

at least that of the president and the 50456002 people who voted for him...

I'm afraid you'll find that most people abroad don't make that distinction. It's hard to be rational when you're having a red hot poker shoved up your wazoo.

And Chile is now the most successful South American Country

Umm...don't promote fascism.

They could create a good economy without being slaughtered by an asshole.

Umm...don't promote fascism.

They could create a good economy without being slaughtered by an asshole.



3,000 people died - but now they have a lower murder rate, higher birth rate, and longer life expectantcy. Seems like a fair trade, no?

In addition, his control was temporary; he handed it back to the people

I'd rather keep this thread about Haiti.

3,000 people died - but now they have a lower murder rate, higher birth rate, and longer life expectantcy. Seems like a fair trade, no?
Tell that to the families of the victims and the mothers of the disappeared.

Killing people is never justified.

I'd rather keep this thread about Haiti.


ok



Killing people is never justified.


That's incredibly naive

The Force Majeure--do you work for the CIA?

The Force Majeure--do you work for the CIA?

*men in dark suits & sunglasses storm mkultra's house and drag him away*

Oh God, people. Do you really believe that Aristide was forced out at gunpoint? This guy was stuffing ballot boxes at their last election, so he'll say anything for power. And Haiti, btw, is not a US-sponsored military dictatorship. If it is a dictatorship, it's an internationally established one, as France, Canada, and Chile fielded just as many troops in Haiti as we did. BTW, the US withdrew all forces, save for a few to guard the embassy.
But what is this obsession among you people that US foreign policy is some democracy killing machine? If it were, Europe and Japan would be absolute monarchies again. The thing you're confusing is the manner of these democracies.
On July 31st, 1962, President John Kennedy spoke to a group of Brazilian students, telling them that any form of government was legitimate, so long as it was created by the people. Less than a month later, Algeria gained its indepence from France and held elections. They voted in a person who was a dictator, and kept Algeria a dictatorship to this day.
You see, the problem is that, primarily after the Cold War, "elected autocracies" as Fareed Zakaria calls them, sprung up over the world. They are leaders with sweeping controls of the government and the economy, but are elected. This is the nature of of Venezuela's Chavez, Russia's Putin, Zimbabwe's Mozambique, and to a certain extent, Argentina's Kirchner. Note that some of the leaders I do agree with. Anyhow, they have democracy for the masses, but no liberty for the individual. And as we're seeing in the Middle East, autocracy leaves no room for an individual future, and helps to breed terrorism.
It's a long story on how to breed an ideal democracy, but the US, all of Europe, and about half of Asia (not to mention England's settler colonies) have done it. To make the long story short, economic freedom and the rule of law need to come before popular soverignty. I think some of you are taking the wrong signals from this.

I feel the need to point out that the US isnt a Democracy...
No, its not a dictatorship either.

That's incredibly naive

If you're going to make such a bold and flat statement about a matter of such grave importance, back it up. Otherwise it's just rhetoric. What are the numbers? How many lives are equal to economic success? How many lives if yours is one of them? How many if one of them is your child's? How do you calculate the figure?

Another communist lie!!! :D Saddam had WMD's and he supported terrorists and the US invaded Iraq to free the people. ;) And now Iraq is safe and peacefull.

I want to hire you to be my new propaganda, err, information minister!

Oh God, people. Do you really believe that Aristide was forced out at gunpoint? This guy was stuffing ballot boxes at their last election, so he'll say anything for power. And Haiti, btw, is not a US-sponsored military dictatorship. If it is a dictatorship, it's an internationally established one, as France, Canada, and Chile fielded just as many troops in Haiti as we did. BTW, the US withdrew all forces, save for a few to guard the embassy.
But what is this obsession among you people that US foreign policy is some democracy killing machine? If it were, Europe and Japan would be absolute monarchies again. The thing you're confusing is the manner of these democracies.
On July 31st, 1962, President John Kennedy spoke to a group of Brazilian students, telling them that any form of government was legitimate, so long as it was created by the people. Less than a month later, Algeria gained its indepence from France and held elections. They voted in a person who was a dictator, and kept Algeria a dictatorship to this day.
You see, the problem is that, primarily after the Cold War, "elected autocracies" as Fareed Zakaria calls them, sprung up over the world. They are leaders with sweeping controls of the government and the economy, but are elected. This is the nature of of Venezuela's Chavez, Russia's Putin, Zimbabwe's Mozambique, and to a certain extent, Argentina's Kirchner. Note that some of the leaders I do agree with. Anyhow, they have democracy for the masses, but no liberty for the individual. And as we're seeing in the Middle East, autocracy leaves no room for an individual future, and helps to breed terrorism.
It's a long story on how to breed an ideal democracy, but the US, all of Europe, and about half of Asia (not to mention England's settler colonies) have done it. To make the long story short, economic freedom and the rule of law need to come before popular soverignty. I think some of you are taking the wrong signals from this.

I think it's a serious mischaracterization to describe the US, Western Europe, or Asia (really, though, only Japan has a truly stable democratic system, and even it, like the rest of the 'Asian Tigers', has a much lower standard of respect for individual rights). The fact is that there is no such thing as ideal democracy; what works in one nation will not necessarily, or even probably, work in another. Also, I'd point out that economic freedom is not as important as economic stability/growth- South Korea is a good example, as are post-WW2 Japan and Western europe. Developement and democratization is certainly not accomplished through deregulation/trade liberalization coupled with rule of law, as has been shown pretty much constantly throughout the past 50 years- the most successfully developing nations were given preferential trade status and immense levels of foreign aid. This seems to be the only 'sure' route towards developement and democratization.

If you're going to make such a bold and flat statement about a matter of such grave importance, back it up. Otherwise it's just rhetoric. What are the numbers? How many lives are equal to economic success?


Would you rather live in stagnation instead of making the world better for future generations? That's awfully selfish of you.


How many lives if yours is one of them? How many if one of them is your child's? How do you calculate the figure?

I'm not a communist - so the question is irrelevant

Money comes over democracy and human rights everytime. Bush also currently supports a bunch of dictators in the ex-Soviet Central Asian states. Why? They are rich in oil and gas...


Introducing Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan
By SADIK H. KASSIM

Introducing Islam Karimov, one of Washington's most recent allies in the War on Terror. The neo-Stalinist autocrat presides over Uzbekistan, a vast mineral and oil rich country strategically located in central Asia. A country where dissidents are boiled alive (1); where having an Islamically sanctioned beard can get you arrested (2); where torture is widespread. In short, a country where human rights abuses are occurring on "a massive scale," (3) financed in part by the American taxpayer.

Slightly larger than the state of California and home to the fabled Silk Road cities of Samarqand and Bukhara, Uzbekistan today is a prime theater in the "War on Terror". After the September 11 attacks, Uzbekistan granted American troops permission to use its Khanbad military base located just north of Afghanistan.

The establishment of Khanbad, along with other bases in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, enabled the American government to achieve three major strategic goals. In addition to providing a center from which the American military could pursue the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bases more importantly, improved "American access to Kazakh and Turkmen oil and gas," and extended "US influence to a region hitherto dominated by Russia and of constant concern to China (4)." The bases in essence paved the way for America to gain a foothold in a globally strategic region thereby putting it in a better position to compete with Russia and China for the great oil treasures of the Caspian Sea.

In addition to being the world's largest lake, the Caspian sea is believed to hold vast oil reserves comparable to those of the Middle East. Yet, unlike the Middle East, transport of the extracted black gold from the landlocked lake to the open sea is a major hurdle. Therefore, the primary issue guiding the politics of the region revolve around not ownership of oil, rather control of the proposed pipelines by which the oil is transported5. It is within this context that Uzbekistan has emerged as "the key strategic state in the area (5)."

Uzbekistan's cooperation with Washington has not gone unrewarded. In March 2002, Messrs Bush and Karimov formally met for 45 minutes in the White House. The meeting produced a five point strategic partnership between the two countries. Among other things, in exchange for continued use of Khanbad, the agreement granted Uzbekistan $500 million in aid and credit guarantees (6), $25 million for military assistance, $18 million for "border security assistance", and $1 million in policing assistance (7). These concessions were made to one of America's "foremost partners in the fight against terrorism (8)" despite the State Department's own declaration that, "Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with a very poor human rights record (9)."

According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) 2003 World Report3, the Karimov led government violates, on a systematic level, basic rights "to freedom of religion, expression, association and assembly." HRW notes that Karimov has used the pretext of the "War on Terror", to pursue a campaign whose aim is to squelch opposition. Specifically, the government has arrested and tortured thousands of independent Muslims, including minors. HRW and other human rights organizations estimate that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 prisoners held on religious and political charges. Most recently, forensic evidence has been revealed suggesting that Karimov's government boiled to death two Muslim prisoners after they refused to stop praying.

The only major critique of Karimov's government by a western government official has come from Britain's Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray (10). "Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy, nor does it appear to be moving in the direction of democracy," said Murray at the opening of the Freedom House human rights center in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in October 2002. Murray continued by exclaiming that, "The major political parties are banned; parliament is not subject to democratic election; and checks and balances on the authority of the electorate are lacking." Murray concluded by noting that, "no government has the right to use the war against terrorism as an excuse for the persecution of those with a deep personal commitment to the Islamic religion, and who pursue their views by peaceful means."

Murray's speech did not sit well with either the American or the Uzbek governments, the latter calling on Murray to apologize for his remarks. Murray did not relent and continued his critiques. In May 2003 he decried, "the intense repression here [in Uzbekistan] combined with the inequality of wealth and absence of reform." While in August 2003 he restated that there was, "no freedom of speech, mass media, movement and so forth." Furthermore, he called on the Uzbek interior and national security ministries to publicly criticize themselves for using torture.

Murray's blunt manner "was causing alarm in London and Washington, where he was regarded as too undiplomaticsome influential figures in the diplomatic service felt he had gone too far10." For his troubles, Murray was subject to a spurious internal British Foreign Office investigation for alleged misconduct. The pressures got to Murray, who eventually returned to London in October of this year for "medical reasons".

According to James McGrory, a British development consultant based in Tashkent, "The common belief is that Mr. Murray is being sacrificed to the AmericansThey certainly loathed him...the US Embassy makes no effort to conceal its dislike of the way he repeatedly and unequivocally slams (the country's) human rights record."

Clare Short, former International Development Secretary who resigned from the Blair cabinet over the war in Iraq, is a purported supporter of Murray's critiques. Of Murray, Short said the following (11), "He is an individual who was taking a stand on human rights issues where there is terrible, terrible repressionif he has been smeared and belittled for standing up for fundamental human rights--this is not just a few honorable political dissidents but really horrible repression--that would be outrageous."

The case of Uzbekistan and Craig Murray prove that once again political expediency takes priority over human rights issues in a globally strategic region. The final word belongs to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the only major American periodical to significantly condemn American policy in Uzbekistan. In an editorial dated November 8, 2003, it was noted that, "If U.S. policy is to have any credibility in the Muslim world--indeed in the world at large--it must be based not on convenience, but on principle. It will be recalled that in the 1980s, the United States made a similar deal of convenience with another Central Asian tyrant. His name was Saddam Hussein."

http://www.counterpunch.org/kassim01172004.html

bump

I feel the need to point out that the US isnt a Democracy...
No, its not a dictatorship either.

Why do americans keep claiming this? Do you not hold elections? Oh my, you even elect Judges (which to me just seems crazy).

And Chile is now the most successful South American Country

In what way? Firstly that is highly debateable, adn I suspect you are only considering the state of the economy. I would argue that a 'successful' country is one which has the strongest democracy, the cheapest healthcare, the highest level of education and the least liklihood of your own government killing you. Economy only comes into it when it is providing these things, not when it is serving the guy at the top.

Why do americans keep claiming this? Do you not hold elections? Oh my, you even elect Judges (which to me just seems crazy).

The United States is currently, in the literal sense, a Tyranny (has a leader who did not arrive in power through legal means).

The United States is currently, in the literal sense, a Tyranny (has a leader who did not arrive in power through legal means).
While I think bush cheated. He did win the electorial election, the people didn't vote him in...the govt did...

I think it's a serious mischaracterization to describe the US, Western Europe, or Asia (really, though, only Japan has a truly stable democratic system, and even it, like the rest of the 'Asian Tigers', has a much lower standard of respect for individual rights). The fact is that there is no such thing as ideal democracy; what works in one nation will not necessarily, or even probably, work in another. Also, I'd point out that economic freedom is not as important as economic stability/growth- South Korea is a good example, as are post-WW2 Japan and Western europe. Developement and democratization is certainly not accomplished through deregulation/trade liberalization coupled with rule of law, as has been shown pretty much constantly throughout the past 50 years- the most successfully developing nations were given preferential trade status and immense levels of foreign aid. This seems to be the only 'sure' route towards developement and democratization.
I didn't say we were true democracies, but liberal democracies. There's an important difference, because pure democracy is, by nature, illiberal.
As for economic freedom, I do not mean free trade and such. I believe it helps, but it isn't necessary. The important parts of economic freedom every country must grant is the ownership of land, intellectual property laws, and the freedom to do business. I'm sure the Asian peasants of 50 years ago were oblivious to how their government pursued trade policy. They were more concerned how they'd trade amongst themselves. That's economic freedom.
Quite frankly, however, not all nations do this. What business community there is acts like an exclusive club, allowing no one to enter. With economic freedom, everyone has a shot at running a business, or trading money, or even owning land. Free trade regulations do help, but they aren't required.

Why do americans keep claiming this? Do you not hold elections? Oh my, you even elect Judges (which to me just seems crazy).

I believe we are actually a representative republic....i.e. the electorial college chooses our president, not the popular vote. The built in right of individual states via the electorial college (which gives each state 2 electorial votes plus 1 per a certain amount of population), and the senate (which gives each state 2 votes regardless of population) keeps us from being a true democracy.

The United States is currently, in the literal sense, a Tyranny (has a leader who did not arrive in power through legal means).

Um, what are you smoking. While he did not win the popular vote, see my post above on the US's support of states' rights which lead him to win the electorial college, which makes him 100% the legal winner.

In what way? Firstly that is highly debateable, adn I suspect you are only considering the state of the economy. I would argue that a 'successful' country is one which has the strongest democracy, the cheapest healthcare, the highest level of education and the least liklihood of your own government killing you. Economy only comes into it when it is providing these things, not when it is serving the guy at the top.

About about these stats? Leader is in bold.

GDP
Chile $9,900 (2003 est.)
Brazil $7,600 (2003 est.)
Argentina $11,200 (2003 est.)
Bolivia $2,400 (2003 est.)
Peru $5,200 (2003 est.)
Venez $4,800 (2003 est.)

Pop Below Poverty
Argentina 51.7% (May 2003)
Brazil 22% (1998 est.)
Chile 20.6% (2000 est.)
Bolivia 70% (1999 est.)
Peru 54% (2003 est.)
Venez 47% (1998 est.)

Suffrage
Chile 18 years of age; universal and compulsory

Life Expectancy
Chile total population: 76.38 years
Brazil total population: 71.41 years
Argentina total population: 75.7 years
Bolivia total population: 65.14 years
Peru total population: 69.22 years
Venez total population: 74.06 years

Infant death rate
Chile total: 9.05 deaths/1,000 live births
Brazil total: 30.66 deaths/1,000 live births
Argentina total: 15.66 deaths/1,000 live births
Bolivia total: 54.58 deaths/1,000 live births
Peru total: 32.95 deaths/1,000 live births
Venez total: 22.99 deaths/1,000 live births

Why do americans keep claiming this? Do you not hold elections? Oh my, you even elect Judges (which to me just seems crazy).
We are a republic, not a democracy. The Founders didn't trust the people enough. And I thought judges were appointed...

3,000 people died - but now they have a lower murder rate, higher birth rate, and longer life expectantcy. Seems like a fair trade, no?

In addition, his control was temporary; he handed it back to the people

Yeah, a fair trade for 3,000 people and many more "disappearances". Yeah. Torture justifies it too. Mmm hmm. I can accept that if you remove half my brain and shove needles into the remaining half.

You do seem to forget that Allende was democratically elected - what happens to all the rhetoric of defending democracy? Does it suddenly not count when economic interests could be even *slightly* dented?

Heres something to read:

"After the people of Chile inadvertently elected a communist for president, General Pinochet did what he had to. Which was assassinate President Salvador Allende. Upon gaining power, Pinochet reformed many of Allende's disastrous policies.

One of Allende's failed initiatives involved not sending death squads to kidnap, torture, and murder his political enemies. This was Pinochet's first policy reversal.

Pinochet handed a list of names to one of his generals and gave orders to have them killed. The general assembled a death squad, jumped into a helicopter, and visited a few towns. He checked off the victims as they were eliminated, 71 people in all. This mission would later become known as the "Caravan of Death."

Thousands of leftists, unionists, and various other troublemakers were rounded up and held in concentration camps for up to three years. Many were interrogated, tortured, and killed. Whereas the Allende government had for all practical purposes given up applying electrical voltage to genitalia, Pinochet brought the country back to its core ideals.

These tried-and-true methods were only required because of the serious nature of the enemy Pinochet was facing. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recognized this. When they met in Santiago on June 8, 1976, Kissinger told Pinochet: "My evaluation is that you are a victim of all left-wing groups around the world and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government that was going Communist." "

---

That aside, my friends parents were tortured under Pinochet. Tell them the trade was worth it. Fascist pig.

*sighs*

Would you rather live in stagnation instead of making the world better for future generations? That's awfully selfish of you.

That is a damned foolish statement. The world can be improved in countless ways without the imposition of tyranny. Furether more, your argument is a straw man, and an ineffective one at that.

I'm not a communist - so the question is irrelevant

So, it would seem, is the answer. I fail to see what my question had to do with Communism. One would almost suspect that you have no good arguments to put forward in this debate, given the lack of content in your posts.

One would almost suspect that you have no good arguments to put forward in this debate, given the lack of content in your posts.

My argument: Chile is better off than any other south american country. I have given statistics to show that. What is your argument? Do you still disagree? I never said that killing was a good thing.

That aside, my friends parents were tortured under Pinochet. Tell them the trade was worth it. Fascist pig.

*sighs*

Allende was elected with 36.5% of the vote. He was conspiring to a Marxist take over of the government.

That is a damned foolish statement. The world can be improved in countless ways without the imposition of tyranny. Furether more, your argument is a straw man, and an ineffective one at that.





I suppose the best way to improve the world is to allow marxists to take over

So, it would seem, is the answer. I fail to see what my question had to do with Communism. One would almost suspect that you have no good arguments to put forward in this debate, given the lack of content in your posts.

Oh, and I was merely noting that I would have nothing to fear from Pinochet, because I wouldn't have supported Allende. Make sense now?

My argument: Chile is better off than any other south american country. I have given statistics to show that. What is your argument? Do you still disagree? I never said that killing was a good thing.

You did, however, condone killing as a political tool whether it's good or not.

I suppose the best way to improve the world is to allow marxists to take over

Allende was elected with 36.5% of the vote. He was conspiring to a Marxist take over of the government.

Well, I guess Pinochet was much better then. How could I even think of human life as sacred when a nation's consumerism was at stake?

I suppose the best way to improve the world is to allow marxists to take over I'd prefer marxists over fascists.

Would you rather live in stagnation instead of making the world better for future generations?
I didn't know that killing people was the only way to make progress.

Jean-Bertrand Aristide was a brutal dictator. I can't speak for the new Haitian ruler, but Aristide was definitely NOT a nice guy.

You do seem to forget that Allende was democratically elected

So was Hitler. What's your point?

I'd prefer marxists over fascists.

Ok - here is the point everyone seems hell bent on ignoring: Pinochet voluntarily gave power back! Not much of a fascist huh?

Well, I guess Pinochet was much better then. How could I even think of human life as sacred when a nation's consumerism was at stake?

A lot more than consumerism was at stake.

I didn't know that killing people was the only way to make progress.

I never said it was the only way. But I would certainly condone it if it meant preventing marxists from taking over my country.

"On September 4, 1970, the elections took place, and it was known by 3:00 the following morning that Allende had received a plurality of the votes cast. The final tabulation was: Allende - 1,076,616, Alessandri - 1,036,278, Tomic - 824,849 (Cf. Tohá, p. 75 )"

Well, the simple fact is that Allende won. That's democracy and Pinochet overthrew it in a coup - how democratic is that? Is it democracy if you kill people when they choose something you don't like?

"On September 4, 1970, the elections took place, and it was known by 3:00 the following morning that Allende had received a plurality of the votes cast. The final tabulation was: Allende - 1,076,616, Alessandri - 1,036,278, Tomic - 824,849 (Cf. Tohá, p. 75 )"

Well, the simple fact is that Allende won. That's democracy and Pinochet overthrew it in a coup - how democratic is that? Is it democracy if you kill people when they choose something you don't like?

It was overthrown after Allende tried to turn the country marxist. It didn't happen immediately after the election, as far as I know.

Ok - here is the point everyone seems hell bent on ignoring: Pinochet voluntarily gave power back! Not much of a fascist huh?

Let's see if I remember this right. After eight years in office Pinochet held an election which he fully expected to win on account of nobody wanting to get caught voting "no" to his remaining in power. An ad campaign was given fifteen minutes each night to state the case for the 'no' vote. What Pinochet didn't count on is that the people were so downtrodden and so angry that the campaign inspired them to overcome their fear. They won. The after the vote, Pinochet's staff offered him a subtle warning to abdicate. If he had not, civil war would surely have devastated the nation.

But none of this took place before Pinochet's men commited extreme human rights violations - beatings, kidnapping, torture, murder - under his orders in an effort to preserve power. So no, I guess he wasn't a fascist, "huh?"

And please stop multiple posting when the quote tag and cut and paste features will suffice. It's obnoxious.

And please stop multiple posting when the quote tag and cut and paste features will suffice. It's obnoxious.

Go ahead and cry about it. I'm responding to multiple people - well, usually.

Jean-Bertrand Aristide was a brutal dictator. I can't speak for the new Haitian ruler, but Aristide was definitely NOT a nice guy.
he was the fairest dictator Haiti ever had and far superior to any of his predecessors. Bush overthrew him just to cater to Haitis slumlord class

Ok - here is the point everyone seems hell bent on ignoring: Pinochet voluntarily gave power back! Not much of a fascist huh? He was actually forced out of power by civil unrest.

It was overthrown after Allende tried to turn the country marxist. It didn't happen immediately after the election, as far as I know.

As far as I know, Allende's agenda was pretty clear, he was a Socialist-Marxist. The people chose him.

As far as I know, Allende's agenda was pretty clear, he was a Socialist-Marxist. The people chose him.

36% of the voters chose him. I doubt they all knew that he would take control of Chile's industries and start it down the path to become the next Cuba. But then again, I wasn't around then.

He was actually forced out of power by civil unrest.

It's my understanding that he agreed to them(elections) thinking he would get elected. I am sure he was also under pressure by american advisors. What better way to try and salvage your image - giving power back.

So, back to Haiti...

I wonder. Could it be that you're compartmentalizing? Isolating the ends from the means? If people showed more interest and concern for means, this world wouldn't be such an unpleasant place. But so often the means are very convenient to the ends, and to relate the ends and means is to give up the convenience or else to experience remorse. My experience with people is that they're far too lazy and cowardly to accept the consequences of their choices if they have an easy out.

Edit: Which is to say that we're all responsible for tyranny and atrocity. The power of a dictator is the power of the people focussed by one mans will. That will doesn't have much to overcome if we pretend that we can not see that it is in the wrong.