NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52R2AF20090328

Spain may open torture probe of six Bush officials

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top Spanish court has moved toward starting a probe of six former Bush administration officials including ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in connection with alleged torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, The New York Times said on Saturday.

The criminal investigation would focus on whether they violated international law by providing a legalistic justification for torture at the U.S. detention camp in Cuba, the Times said.

The paper said the National Court in Madrid had assigned the case to judge Baltasar Garzon, known for ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.

Garzon has accepted the case and sent it to the prosecutor's office for review, the newspaper said, citing an official close to the case.

The complaint, prepared by Spanish lawyers with the help of U.S. and European legal experts, also names John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, and Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy.

Spain can claim jurisdiction in the case because five Spanish citizens or residents who were prisoners at Guantanamo Bay say they were tortured there.

The other Americans named are William Haynes II, former general counsel for the Department of Defense; Jay Bybee, Yoo's former boss at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, chief of staff and legal adviser to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney.

Yoo, already the subject of a Justice Department ethics investigation, declined to comment to the Times. The others either could not be reached or did not immediately respond to requests for comment, the Times said.

Gonzalo Boye, a Madrid lawyer who filed the complaint, said the six Americans had well-documented roles in approving illegal interrogation techniques, redefining torture and abandoning the definition set by the 1984 Torture Convention, the newspaper said.

This may not help our US/Spain relations. Everyone's been clamoring for Bush and his cronies to be indicted, and this is the first step on a long uphill battle.

Does this make NSG happy? Did anyone expect it out of Spain?

yeah,

you know what, people say that so much I actually do expect the spanish inquisition.

and no doubt they'll be as useless as the last time

Good! Let's hope other countries follow!

I hope it's along the lines of this example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oppHeMlaLVM&eurl).

Of course, we should probably also get a few other administrations while we're at it...

I'm doubtful of America cooperating even if Spain does rule against the Americans in question. Even in things have Changed now, that's not a Change I can Believe In.

I am still of the opinion that anyone advocating "enhanced interrogation techniques" should undergo them personally, so that they can argue from direct experience.

I'm mixed on this...part of me wants to see that bastard Bush and Cheney get what they deserve...but I want it to be the American people who do it, not some Euros.

I doubt that it will go anywhere, but I'm still going to hope and pray that it does. I'd like the place it goes to provide me with pictures of those scumbags hanging around a prison yard in orange jumpsuits. And I don't care where in the world that prison is, so long as they will never, never get out of it.

I hope it's along the lines of this example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oppHeMlaLVM&eurl).

I have to post this one to Facebook! :D

I'm doubtful of America cooperating even if Spain does rule against the Americans in question. Even in things have Changed now, that's not a Change I can Believe In.

I am still of the opinion that anyone advocating "enhanced interrogation techniques" should undergo them personally, so that they can argue from direct experience.

Or we could take the high road and not sink to the level of our enemies (or lower, since Bush at least had Intelligence reasons, whereas it seems pretty clear that you're just wanting payback).

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying "People who have advocated waterboarding should be waterboarded as punishment". I'm saying "People who advocate waterboarding should, voluntarily, have themselves waterboarded first, so they can say from direct experience "I have experienced this and I do not believe it to be torture"."

Or we could take the high road and not sink to the level of our enemies (or lower, since Bush at least had Intelligence reasons, whereas it seems pretty clear that you're just wanting payback).

Torture is notorious for creating bad results. Anyone remember being a 6-year-old who got tickled until (s)he promised not to sneak any more cookies out of the cookie jar? How many of you actually stopped sneaking the cookies instead of just saying you would to stop getting tickled?

Anyone remember being a 6-year-old who got tickled until (s)he promised not to sneak any more cookies out of the cookie jar? How many of you actually stopped sneaking the cookies instead of just saying you would to stop getting tickled?

I don't know if this is a good analogy, a bad analogy, a funny analogy, a cute analogy or a disturbing analogy...

I don't know if this is a good analogy, a bad analogy, a funny analogy, a cute analogy or a disturbing analogy...

That's probably why I like it. :)

That's probably why I like it. :)

>.>

<.<

*Soylents LG and feeds him to children.*

SOYLENT COOKIE... IS PEOPLE!!!

>.>

<.<

*Soylents LG and feeds him to children.*

SOYLENT COOKIE... IS PEOPLE!!!

*the kids all become mud-loving groin-kicking demented clowns*

I hope it's along the lines of this example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oppHeMlaLVM&eurl).
:eek2: It's Dick Cheney's Secret Garden fantasy life!!! :D

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying "People who have advocated waterboarding should be waterboarded as punishment". I'm saying "People who advocate waterboarding should, voluntarily, have themselves waterboarded first, so they can say from direct experience "I have experienced this and I do not believe it to be torture"."
I can never remember the guy's name, but I think the second guy in command at the Department of Justice, while Ashcroft was in the hospital, went and did that for that very reason. When he was done, he declared it torture and said the US must never, never do it. He was fired soon after.

*the kids all become mud-loving groin-kicking demented clowns*

Boys will be boys.

I can never remember the guy's name, but I think the second guy in command at the Department of Justice, while Ashcroft was in the hospital, went and did that for that very reason. When he was done, he declared it torture and said the US must never, never do it. He was fired soon after.Don't remember the name either, but I can confirm that I read that same story.

Don't remember the name either, but I can confirm that I read that same story.

3rd-ed.

I can never remember the guy's name, but I think the second guy in command at the Department of Justice, while Ashcroft was in the hospital, went and did that for that very reason. When he was done, he declared it torture and said the US must never, never do it. He was fired soon after.

See, that guy I can respect. Even if he'd come out and said it wasn't torture, he'd still be speaking from experience. I'd still think he was wrong to say that, mind you, but it'd be a lot harder to argue with someone who'd actually had it done to him ... except, of course, that (as far as I know) everyone who's been waterboarded thinks it's torture.

But come, we wander off topic. I'd be interested to know what the chances are that the US would comply with a verdict against the Americans in question, from someone with more knowledge of US law and politics than I.

... except, of course, that (as far as I know) everyone who's been waterboarded thinks it's torture.

So does everyone who has ever sat through a Merle Haggard concert.

I can never remember the guy's name, but I think the second guy in command at the Department of Justice, while Ashcroft was in the hospital, went and did that for that very reason. When he was done, he declared it torture and said the US must never, never do it. He was fired soon after.

You might be conflating two people. The Deputy Attorney General under Ashcroft was a man by the name of Larry Thompson. To my knowledge, he was never waterboarded.

The man who you are referring to, I believe, is reporter Christopher Hitchens, who, after experiencing waterboarding, twice, stated ""if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

It's worth noting that, prior to experiencing it first hand, Hitchens had stated his believe that it was not torture.

Everyone's been clamoring for Bush and his cronies to be indicted...

Everyone? Really? I think you might be over-estimating your mandate just a touch there, friend. I don't even think everyone on this forum is clamoring for that.

So does everyone who has ever sat through a Merle Haggard concert.

I don't know about that, I've paid good money to listen to him sing.

Good! Let's hope other countries follow!

I doubt the UK will, somehow.

Everyone? Really? I think you might be over-estimating your mandate just a touch there, friend. I don't even think everyone on this forum is clamoring for that.

No, it's a sweeping generalization due to the severe volume of the people on this board clamoring for bush and cronies to be indicted. I'm well aware that not everyone - or even everyone on this board - wants Bush & Co charged, but given the immense volume of complaints on this board, I made a sweeping generalization of "everyone", referring to the members of this board.

I don't know about that, I've paid good money to listen to him sing.

I'm sorry you wasted good money on him. Here, have a cookie.

That's probably why I like it. :)

Being tickled? Interesting...

I'm sorry you wasted good money on him. Here, have a cookie.

I wouldn't call it 'wasted' at all. 'Used', possibly, or 'spent', but not 'wasted.'

As for the rest, while I can understand the attraction of a bit of potential schadenfreude, I wouldn't hold my breath and count on Spain for much, renowned power player on the world stage though it is.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52R2AF20090328
Does this make NSG happy?-er.
Did anyone expect it out of Spain?Nopers. Well, there was a hint of it a couple years back, but i can't say i "expected" this.

What can Spain do if they come to the conclusion that the bush administration was at fault?

What can Spain do if they come to the conclusion that the bush administration was at fault?


More well meaning paperwork, I'd imagine.

More well meaning paperwork, I'd imagine.

Even if no prison time comes of it, seeing those bastards convicted of any of their war crimes would bring a big smile to my face...

Good! Let's hope other countries follow!

Currently here in Milan there's an trial in absentia going on, against CIA agents who allegedly abducted a muslim cleric and deported him to a US military base abroad to torture him.

Currently here in Milan there's an trial in absentia going on, against CIA agents who allegedly abducted a muslim cleric and deported it to a US military base abroad to torture him.

Italy has my full support, for what it's worth.

Tear down the CIA!

You might be conflating two people. The Deputy Attorney General under Ashcroft was a man by the name of Larry Thompson. To my knowledge, he was never waterboarded.

The man who you are referring to, I believe, is reporter Christopher Hitchens, who, after experiencing waterboarding, twice, stated ""if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

It's worth noting that, prior to experiencing it first hand, Hitchens had stated his believe that it was not torture.
No, it was not Hitchens. It was the second or third guy under Larry Thompson, who was Acting AG while Ashcroft was in hospital -- it was the Acting AG's second or third in command. I can't remember his name, but I can remember what he looks like -- tall, thin guy, gray hair, narrow-ish face, lawyer. However, the story is so old, without his name I can't get the info from google.

EDIT: Trust me, I don't confuse Christopher Hitchens with anyone else. That sneering voice, that smug expression -- they stick in my mind.

Only the purifying flames of common sense and human decency can expell the devil of it's not torture from the souls of these men!

In other words just lock 'em up...

What can Spain do if they come to the conclusion that the bush administration was at fault?

This:
Currently here in Milan there's an trial in absentia going on, against CIA agents who allegedly abducted a muslim cleric and deported it to a US military base abroad to torture him.

Even short of that, an outstanding warrant for such severe crimes would essentially make those named in it prisoners within the US. If they were to leave the US and go to any country that either would honor the warrant or turn a blind eye to another country coming in to exercise the warrant, they could be arrested and taken into foreign custody.

It would be interesting to see if someday in the future, even the US might turn such a blind eye. (Nah, that would never happen, but a person can dream.)

Boys will be boys.

:eek:

:D

Italy has my full support, for what it's worth.

Tear down the CIA!

Yeah, just don't change sides half way through.:p

This:


Even short of that, an outstanding warrant for such severe crimes would essentially make those named in it prisoners within the US. If they were to leave the US and go to any country that either would honor the warrant or turn a blind eye to another country coming in to exercise the warrant, they could be arrested and taken into foreign custody.

It would be interesting to see if someday in the future, even the US might turn such a blind eye. (Nah, that would never happen, but a person can dream.)

Where would it go for sentencing? The Hague?

Where would it go for sentencing? The Hague?
I don't know.

Italy has my full support, for what it's worth.

Tear down the CIA!


Why? The CIA is a great organization, one of the most important in the world for protecting American AND European security...what POSSIBLE benefit could be attained by "tearing" it down?

Where would it go for sentencing? The Hague?

Hypothetically speaking, if the American people went along with it, most likely. That'd be the most appropriate place for it to happen. However, that'd never be allowed to happen. Even myself, who hates Georgey Boy and Dick "head" Cheney with a passion, wouldn't stand for it. Its not so much that I condone Bush's actions, trust me I don't, but seeing him tried outside of an American court is demeaning and in my opinion disrespectful (to the American people).


But I'm not exactly the international type anyway...

Why? The CIA is a great organization, one of the most important in the world for protecting American AND European security...what POSSIBLE benefit could be attained by "tearing" it down?

Entertainment. :)

Hypothetically speaking, if the American people went along with it, most likely. That'd be the most appropriate place for it to happen. However, that'd never be allowed to happen. Even myself, who hates Georgey Boy and Dick "head" Cheney with a passion, wouldn't stand for it. Its not so much that I condone Bush's actions, trust me I don't, but seeing him tried outside of an American court is demeaning and in my opinion disrespectful (to the American people).


But I'm not exactly the international type anyway...
Why would you not stand for justice being done just because of where it would be done? If they are accused, let them face their accusers and the charges against them in a court of law. And if they are convicted fairly, let them serve their sentences. Who cares where that happens?

No, it was not Hitchens. It was the second or third guy under Larry Thompson, who was Acting AG while Ashcroft was in hospital -- it was the Acting AG's second or third in command. I can't remember his name, but I can remember what he looks like -- tall, thin guy, gray hair, narrow-ish face, lawyer. However, the story is so old, without his name I can't get the info from google.

EDIT: Trust me, I don't confuse Christopher Hitchens with anyone else. That sneering voice, that smug expression -- they stick in my mind.
you mean this guy eh?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076

daniel levin

you mean this guy eh?

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DOJ/story?id=3814076

daniel levin
Yes! Thank you! *bookmarks article*

Why would you not stand for justice being done just because of where it would be done? If they are accused, let them face their accusers and the charges against them in a court of law. And if they are convicted fairly, let them serve their sentences. Who cares where that happens?


Because I believe that if it were to happen, it should be the American people to do it. Also keep in mind that the offenses they have committed, in my mind, are not the same as the ones you wish to see him tried and convicted for.

I do not care about the war in Iraq. I'm not pleased that we got involved in it but I'm not overly angered about it anymore. What pissed me off were the egregious missteppings they took, the lies, the blatant violations of our constitution in so many levels, an ultimately the terrible deficit spending they launched which ultimately has lead to this depression (ultimately, I know, directly tied to both the War in small part, and obscene oil prices breaking the back of the economy in larger part, among many other contributing factors).

That is why I'm pissed off and want to see them tried. Not the same reasons as you, eh? And for that reason, if I were asked my opinion I'd say its only fitting he be tried in the US.

Because I believe that if it were to happen, it should be the American people to do it. Also keep in mind that the offenses they have committed, in my mind, are not the same as the ones you wish to see him tried and convicted for.

I do not care about the war in Iraq. I'm not pleased that we got involved in it but I'm not overly angered about it anymore. What pissed me off were the egregious missteppings they took, the lies, the blatant violations of our constitution in so many levels, an ultimately the terrible deficit spending they launched which ultimately has lead to this depression (ultimately, I know, directly tied to both the War in small part, and obscene oil prices breaking the back of the economy in larger part, among many other contributing factors).

That is why I'm pissed off and want to see them tried. Not the same reasons as you, eh? And for that reason, if I were asked my opinion I'd say its only fitting he be tried in the US.
Well, yes, that's true. They committed plenty of crimes right here in the good old USofA against the American people. But if we Americans won't prosecute them for those, I see no reason why other people shouldn't prosecute them for their overseas crimes.

And remember, there's no reason at all why they can't be prosecuted in both places for both sets of crimes.

Well, yes, that's true. They committed plenty of crimes right here in the good old USofA against the American people. But if we Americans won't prosecute them for those, I see no reason why other people shouldn't prosecute them for their overseas crimes.

And remember, there's no reason at all why they can't be prosecuted in both places for both sets of crimes.


I completely forgot to throw that in my post: I am aware that, despite my personal feelings of apathy on the matter, the invasion of Iraq IS illegal. A great compromise I can see: the American people try the Neo-Cons for their domestic crimes, and the Hague Warcrimes Tribunal, an organization I do greatly respect, tries them for their international crimes, and they're sentenced to do their time at some place decided by the US Supreme Court justices and the Tribunal members.

Now we're talking equal justice for all eh? :tongue:

A great compromise I can see:

Too bad compromise is taboo when it comes to nebulous concepts like justice in the executive office. What person in executive office would ever allow something like this to come to pass unhindered, knowing full well that it would remove their immunity for carrying out questionable and illegal acts using the powers of their office?

Even those with ultra clean noses would end up spending the rest of their post term life defending against witch hunts by their political enemies.

I'm mixed on this...part of me wants to see that bastard Bush and Cheney get what they deserve...but I want it to be the American people who do it, not some Euros.

I agree, the Americans should take care of their own. Let them investigate and make Bush pay.

I agree, the Americans should take care of their own. Let them investigate and make Bush pay.

Probability of that is right around 0%.

Why? The CIA is a great organization, one of the most important in the world for protecting American AND European security...what POSSIBLE benefit could be attained by "tearing" it down?

The CIA is nothing but a murder mill. They've sparked and propped up so many coups since the end of WWII. It's a liability.

Iran, 1953
Italy, many times between 1953 and the '80s
Guatemala, 1954
Cuba, 1959 (Yes, that's right - the United States is responsible for Castro being in power in the first place!)
Zaire/DRC, 1960
Iraq, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Ghana, 1966
Greece, 1967
Iraq, 1968
Chile, 1973
Afghanistan, 1973-74
Argentina, 1976
Afghanistan, 1978-present
Turkey, 1980
Nicaragua, 1981-90

And the list goes on.

Too bad compromise is taboo when it comes to nebulous concepts like justice in the executive office. What person in executive office would ever allow something like this to come to pass unhindered, knowing full well that it would remove their immunity for carrying out questionable and illegal acts using the powers of their office?

Even those with ultra clean noses would end up spending the rest of their post term life defending against witch hunts by their political enemies.
One who makes sure that everything he does is okey-doke under the law.

As for witch hunts, that happens anyway, so meh.

No, it was not Hitchens. It was the second or third guy under Larry Thompson, who was Acting AG while Ashcroft was in hospital -- it was the Acting AG's second or third in command. I can't remember his name, but I can remember what he looks like -- tall, thin guy, gray hair, narrow-ish face, lawyer. However, the story is so old, without his name I can't get the info from google.

EDIT: Trust me, I don't confuse Christopher Hitchens with anyone else. That sneering voice, that smug expression -- they stick in my mind.

Oh, yes, I remember who you are talking about now. His name is Daniel Levin.

The CIA is nothing but a murder mill. They've sparked and propped up so many coups since the end of WWII. It's a liability.

Iran, 1953
Italy, many times between 1953 and the '80s
Guatemala, 1954
Cuba, 1959 (Yes, that's right - the United States is responsible for Castro being in power in the first place!)
Zaire/DRC, 1960
Iraq, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Ghana, 1966
Greece, 1967
Iraq, 1968
Chile, 1973
Afghanistan, 1973-74
Argentina, 1976
Afghanistan, 1978-present
Turkey, 1980
Nicaragua, 1981-90

And the list goes on.
Where you see a problem, I see an impressive track record.

Anyway you act like just because you list a name of a country and a date next to it, that makes it bad.

For example, Afghanistan. I assume you are talking about the CIA helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was crucial in showing the world that the Soviet Union was not invincible. That the Soviet Empire could be stopped. It had never been before that CIA backed Mujahideen victory.

Its not so much that I condone Bush's actions, trust me I don't, but seeing him tried outside of an American court is demeaning and in my opinion disrespectful (to the American people).

Considering that the Bush Administration created the extra-judicial status of "Enemy Combatant" some would find it ironic and appropriate that they be tried outside of an American court.

Where you see a problem, I see an impressive track record.
An impressive track record of murder, abuse, law-breaking, failure, and political blowback against the US, yes.

Anyway you act like just because you list a name of a country and a date next to it, that makes it bad.
Of course, if one bothers to learn anything about the CIA's operations in those countries, the list might be more informative.

For example, Afghanistan. I assume you are talking about the CIA helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was crucial in showing the world that the Soviet Union was not invincible. That the Soviet Empire could be stopped. It had never been before that CIA backed Mujahideen victory.
Yes, and look how that worked out for us: Al qaida. The Taliban.

Mm-hm, an impressive track record indeed. And of course, it's not as if we did not already know that setting up revolutionaries/rebels and then abandoning them once we got what we wanted from them would turn them into dangerous enemies. Nope, we sure couldn't have predicted that. *looks at Latin America* :rolleyes:

Yes, and look how that worked out for us: Al qaida. The Taliban.


Exactly. US foreign policy is the poster child for unintended consequences.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52R2AF20090328



This may not help our US/Spain relations. Everyone's been clamoring for Bush and his cronies to be indicted, and this is the first step on a long uphill battle.

Does this make NSG happy? Did anyone expect it out of Spain?

Expected that, if it came at all, it would start somewhere like Spain... or Belgium. Pre-Sarkozy France would have been a possibility.

It had to be somewhere that didn't really give a shit too much about meeting with US approval.

What can Spain do if they come to the conclusion that the bush administration was at fault?

Not a damn thing if the U.S. doesn't cooperate.

Where you see a problem, I see an impressive track record.

Anyway you act like just because you list a name of a country and a date next to it, that makes it bad.

Let's be more accurate then.

Italy, Milano, Piazza Fontana, Banca Nazionale dell'Agricoltura. December 12th 1969, late afternoon.

Yes. It's bad.


For example, Afghanistan. I assume you are talking about the CIA helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was crucial in showing the world that the Soviet Union was not invincible. That the Soviet Empire could be stopped. It had never been before that CIA backed Mujahideen victory.

Actually what you call the Soviet Empire was already showing a lot of restraint in dealing with, dunno, Poland? Or some years later, Lithuania? I seem to rembember a guy called Gorbachev - a soviet citizen iirc - actually dismantling the "empire".
What the CIA did in Afghanistan was quite immaterial in the end of the Eastern Bloc. Though it prepared a lot of trouble for the USA in, like, 2001.

Not a damn thing if the U.S. doesn't cooperate.

Bastard Yanks!

Where you see a problem, I see an impressive track record.

Even assuming you actually do so (I'm still not convinced you're not a Communist trying to make Capitalists look like people who support torture and murder :tongue: Especially since what you're doing is the same as seeing 9/11 as an "impressive track record"), you would remain in a small minority whose notions are mocked and reviled throughout the globe.

So it's been handed over to Baltasar Garzon, has it? Why am I not surprised :tongue:

Where would it go for sentencing? The Hague?
No.

The ICC, if that's what you're thinking of, is a completely different entity from the Spanish national courts. So if the Spanish courts convict him, the ICC (and the rest of the Hague) will stay out of it.

Hypothetically speaking, if the American people went along with it, most likely. That'd be the most appropriate place for it to happen. However, that'd never be allowed to happen. Even myself, who hates Georgey Boy and Dick "head" Cheney with a passion, wouldn't stand for it. Its not so much that I condone Bush's actions, trust me I don't, but seeing him tried outside of an American court is demeaning and in my opinion disrespectful (to the American people).


But I'm not exactly the international type anyway...
Get an investigation / trial started in the US, and I can guarantee that the ICC will stay out of it completely.

Not that they'll be involved if an investigation / trial isn't started in the US, but hey...

Sooo...The Spanish are the ones going to put the Bushies on trial....Somehow the Irony of Texas being a former Spanish Colony tickels me inside, lol...

Where you see a problem, I see an impressive track record.

Anyway you act like just because you list a name of a country and a date next to it, that makes it bad.

For example, Afghanistan. I assume you are talking about the CIA helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was crucial in showing the world that the Soviet Union was not invincible. That the Soviet Empire could be stopped. It had never been before that CIA backed Mujahideen victory.

And the result of the CIA butting into the situation in Afghanistan: A long civil war resulting in the Taliban taking over. Yeah, that's a really great thing...

Sooo...The Spanish are the ones going to put the Bushies on trial....Somehow the Irony of Texas being a former Spanish Colony tickels me inside, lol...

I never looked at it that way. That is hilarous. :D

*SNIP*
You're not helping your case by saying that seeing the CIA backing of the Afghani resistance against the Soviet Union as an impressive track record is 'the same' as 9/11. In fact, it looks rather silly. :p

]Actually what you call the Soviet Empire was already showing a lot of restraint in dealing with, dunno, Poland? Or some years later, Lithuania? I seem to rembember a guy called Gorbachev - a soviet citizen iirc - actually dismantling the "empire".
Look, the relaxing of control over eastern Europe came under Gorbachev, who headed the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1991. And it was only really in 1988 that the Soviet Union officially dropped the Brezhnev doctrine and allowed Eastern Block nations more freedom in their domestic affairs. While the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was in 1979 (until 1988). In 1981 the CIA really (and Charlie Wilson and that whole awesome story) started getting involved and supporting the resistance against the Soviets. And it was only around 1984 and 1984 that the CIA reallllllly started helping the Afghan resistance to win the war, providing them with big money. You're not really understanding the dates here, as much of what I listed above was before Gorbachev. And are you doubting that the Soviet Empire was an empire?

What the CIA did in Afghanistan was quite immaterial in the end of the Eastern Bloc. Though it prepared a lot of trouble for the USA in, like, 2001.
What the CIA did was help prevent the Soviet and resist the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and show the world that the Soviet Union could be stopped. The CIA helping fight off the Soviets didn't cause 9/11. One could argue that what helped to cause 9/11 was the U.S. not staying in Afghanistan afterwards to help stabalize and secure the country, rebuilding schools and infrastructure and such, though.
An impressive track record of murder, abuse, law-breaking, failure, and political blowback against the US, yes.


Of course, if one bothers to learn anything about the CIA's operations in those countries, the list might be more informative.


Yes, and look how that worked out for us: Al qaida. The Taliban.

Mm-hm, an impressive track record indeed. And of course, it's not as if we did not already know that setting up revolutionaries/rebels and then abandoning them once we got what we wanted from them would turn them into dangerous enemies.
See above. Anyway, you fight the wars of the present in the present, and then you live to worry about the future and what it may bring.
Nope, we sure couldn't have predicted that. *looks at Latin America* :rolleyes:
Well? What about it? The CIA fought against Soviet aggression and KGB infiltration in Latin-America. Stopping Communism is the responsibility of any free man who believes that people should be able to live free. Communism is enslavement.

And the result of the CIA butting into the situation in Afghanistan: A long civil war resulting in the Taliban taking over. Yeah, that's a really great thing...
Hello, there was a civil war before the CIA got there. You know, what with them supporting the Mujihadeen side of the civil war. :rolleyes:

Try harder.

Currently here in Milan there's an trial in absentia going on, against CIA agents who allegedly abducted a muslim cleric and deported him to a US military base abroad to torture him.

Italy should order the U.S. to evacuate all its bases there. Then, every other country with U.S. bases should follow suit.

Alright for all of you that are bashing on the CIA for some reason... when it does its job right nobody ever knows about it. Sure we know a lot of things they have done wrong, but I am pretty sure that they do a lot more right than they do wrong.

Italy should order the U.S. to evacuate all its bases there. Then, every other country with U.S. bases should follow suit.

No dont do that...If i manage to get into the National Guard, I was hoping to visit some of those countries!

You're not helping your case by saying that seeing the CIA backing of the Afghani resistance against the Soviet Union as an impressive track record is 'the same' as 9/11. In fact, it looks rather silly. :p

Well? What about it? The CIA fought against Soviet aggression and KGB infiltration in Latin-America. Stopping Communism is the responsibility of any free man who believes that people should be able to live free. Communism is enslavement.

You know fully well what I was comparing, rightly, to 9/11.

Besides, the responsibility of a free man is to stop dictatorships. Regardless of what economical system they preach. That is freedom, and that alone. Not to mention that, no, the governments here weren't communist - even assuming that them being so would legitimize the atrocity the US supported here, which is way worse than 9/11.

Why? The CIA is a great organization, one of the most important in the world for protecting American AND European security...what POSSIBLE benefit could be attained by "tearing" it down?

By creating future blowback that always comes back to bite us in the ass down the road? Examples: Overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, etc. The CIA does nothing but jeopardize peace, inflame anti-American sentiment, and worst of all, lead both directly and indirectly to the slaughter of too many people to count. Remember Operation PBSuccess? We overthrew a moderate social democrat for the "crime" of trying to nationalize properties owned by United Fruit Co. Hell, he even offered fair compensation (i.e., exactly what the property was worth). Instead, we threw him out, and a few decades of brutal military dictatorships, guerrilla warfare, and general chaos followed. By the time it ended in 1996, Guatemala was a shambles, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

Yeah, great organization, all right.

Things were so much more efficient under J. Edgar Hoover...

By creating future blowback that always comes back to bite us in the ass down the road? Examples: Overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953, supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, etc. The CIA does nothing but jeopardize peace, inflame anti-American sentiment, and worst of all, lead both directly and indirectly to the slaughter of too many people to count. Remember Operation PBSuccess? We overthrew a moderate social democrat for the "crime" of trying to nationalize properties owned by United Fruit Co. Hell, he even offered fair compensation (i.e., exactly what the property was worth). Instead, we threw him out, and a few decades of brutal military dictatorships, guerrilla warfare, and general chaos followed. By the time it ended in 1996, Guatemala was a shambles, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

Yeah, great organization, all right.

Gathering intelligence: vital.
Starting coups and inflaming civil wars that result in the slaughter of millions of people: immoral if not criminal.

(PS Ledgersia: I agree.)

Gathering intelligence: vital.
Starting coups and inflaming civil wars that result in the slaughter of millions of people: immoral if not criminal.

Then they have to be forced to do only the former and punished - harshly - when doing the latter.

Then they have to be forced to do only the former and punished - harshly - when doing the latter.

The current organization must be torn to the ground and completely rebuilt as strictly an intelligence-gathering group if that is to happen.

TAI, I am no more a fan of communism than you are, but many of the dictators installed and/or supported by the U.S. were as bad or far worse than the people they replaced. Allende's economic policies were a total disaster, but at least the man never tortured, killed, or "disappeared" anyone. There is no reason whatsoever to interfere in other countries' affairs if they don't ever interfere in ours. Guatemala under Arbenz, the Congo under Lumumba, Iran under Mossadegh, and Chile under Allende posed no conceivable threat to the U.S. whatsoever.

Interesting, little-known fact (little known even to his supporters): Before asking the Soviets, or even the UN, for help, Lumumba appealed to the U.S. first. Only after no help was forthcoming, and only after exhausting all other options, did he turn to the Soviets. Cynical as Moscow's motives were, they were the only ones who would help him. Unfortunately, he would end up paying for it with his life. Lumumba was not a saint. Like any person, he was deeply flawed and had many faults. But he was a sincere nationalist who genuinely wanted a truly democratic Congo that transcended tribalism and he wanted to make the country genuinely non-aligned in the world, not just on paper.

The current organization must be torn to the ground and completely rebuilt as strictly an intelligence-gathering group if that is to happen.

^ This.

Where you see a problem, I see an impressive track record.

Yes, an impressive track record that Garzon will use to prosecute GWB, on all forums. You have no idea how much tencaity Garzon has, and if he has it his way, your country will have to make a decision. And soon.

Anyway you act like just because you list a name of a country and a date next to it, that makes it bad.

Is is bad. Your country is responsible for a lot of crap. Look at it however damn well you please.

For example, Afghanistan. I assume you are talking about the CIA helping the Mujahideen defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. That was crucial in showing the world that the Soviet Union was not invincible. That the Soviet Empire could be stopped. It had never been before that CIA backed Mujahideen victory.

And it was imperative and good for Chile that Pinochet's government kill all those people, right? TAI, I respect you most of the time, but this argument of yours is, and forever will sound like, BS. 100% BS.:rolleyes:

Interesting, little-known fact (little known even to his supporters): Before asking the Soviets, or even the UN, for help, Lumumba appealed to the U.S. first. Only after no help was forthcoming, and only after exhausting all other options, did he turn to the Soviets. Cynical as Moscow's motives were, they were the only ones who would help him. Unfortunately, he would end up paying for it with his life. Lumumba was not a saint. Like any person, he was deeply flawed and had many faults. But he was a sincere nationalist who genuinely wanted a truly democratic Congo that transcended tribalism and he wanted to make the country genuinely non-aligned in the world, not just on paper.

Uncle Ho asked for the exact same thing from the United States when North Vietnam broke away from French colonial rule. The US of course refused to recognize the new nation for fear of offending France (ironic in this day and age of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey jokes) and like Lumumba turned to the Soviets for recognition. And so the whole mess that became Vietnam started.

Uncle Ho asked for the exact same thing from the United States when North Vietnam broke away from French colonial rule. The US of course refused to recognize the new nation for fear of offending France (ironic in this day and age of Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey jokes) and like Lumumba turned to the Soviets for recognition. And so the whole mess that became Vietnam started.

That's correct. Ho was already a communist, but a (at least initially) pro-American one. While his regime was pretty deplorable, he posed no threat to us, and Ngo Dinh Diem was not much better, if at all. We should have (IMO) immediately recognized Viet Nam but never gotten involved in support of either side.

Also, TAI, did you know that the U.S. - by Zbigniew Brzezinski's own admission - deliberately provoked the U.S.S.R. into intervening in Afghanistan, to give the U.S.S.R. "their own" Vietnam War?

That's correct. Ho was already a communist, but a (at least initially) pro-American one. While his regime was pretty deplorable, he posed no threat to us, and Ngo Dinh Diem was not much better, if at all. We should have (IMO) immediately recognized Viet Nam but never gotten involved in support of either side.

I wonder what Ho Chi Minh would have done differently if the Eisenhower administration had more quickly recognized Vietnam.

On top of that, Ngo Dinh Diem was (from what I remember reading in high school history) attempting to force some minute amount of theocracy on South Vietnam (he was Catholic and most of Vietnam was and probably still is Buddhist). I believe it came in the form of what national holidays would dot the calendar.

I wonder what Ho Chi Minh would have done differently if the Eisenhower administration had more quickly recognized Vietnam.

I don't know, but we should have recognized Viet Nam. It would have spared both countries a lot of unnecessary grief.

On top of that, Ngo Dinh Diem was (from what I remember reading in high school history) attempting to force some minute amount of theocracy on South Vietnam (he was Catholic and most of Vietnam was and probably still is Buddhist).

Not quite a theocracy, but Buddhists were persecuted pretty horribly.

Not quite a theocracy, but Buddhists were persecuted pretty horribly.

Proof positive that a dictatorship is a dictatorship, no matter what kind of economy it has.

Proof positive that a dictatorship is a dictatorship, no matter what kind of economy it has.

Quoted for truth. Dictatorship is always wrong.

That is a bad idea and I'd love to see you try. Thankfully, most people disagree with you and that won't happen.

Because, yeah, having an organization that goes around knocking off world leaders and plunging countries into chaos is such a great thing. Like Ledgersia said at least once, that usually comes back to bite us right in the balls when we stick our collective nose where it doesn't belong.

Quoted for truth. Dictatorship is always wrong.

To be honest, if I had to pick between a socialist dictatorship and a free-market place with limited constraints in the civil and political liberties arena, I'd forgo the socialist dictatorship. I'm a socialist (libertarian democratic socialist, to be more precise). Having a dictatorship as the political structure just wouldn't be worth it.

Because, yeah, having an organization that goes around knocking off world leaders and plunging countries into chaos is such a great thing. Like Ledgersia said at least once, that usually comes back to bite us right in the balls when we stick our collective nose where it doesn't belong.

Yup. If you guys haven't already, I very highly recommend reading Chalmers Johnson's books.

To be honest, if I had to pick between a socialist dictatorship and a free-market place with limited constraints in the civil and political liberties arena, I'd forgo the socialist dictatorship. I'm a socialist (libertarian democratic socialist, to be more precise). Having a dictatorship as the political structure just wouldn't be worth it.

I'm a free market anarchist, which means that we would agree 99% of the time on everything except economics. :p

I'm a free market anarchist, which means that we would agree 99% of the time on everything except economics. :p

Im a free market antichrist!!! BEWARE!@@! lol

How ignorant. So Russia and France are the same because they are both 'semi presidential' systems?

Neither one of those regimes is a dictatorship. Russia is inching ever closer to becoming one again, but I wouldn't call it that yet.

Im a free market antichrist!!! BEWARE!@@! lol

lol! :p

I'm a free market anarchist, which means that we would agree 99% of the time on everything except economics. :p

I wouldn't mind debating you on that in private sometime. Who knows - maybe we might be able to piece something together something that works for everyone as opposed to a few people at the top (of the political structure, for the record). :)

I wouldn't mind debating you on that in private sometime. Who knows - maybe we might be able to piece something together something that works for everyone as opposed to a few people at the top (of the political structure, for the record). :)

Sounds good. I have MSN, if you ever want to chat (TG me if interested).

Are you still daring to defend Pinochet's regime?!

Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. The economic system is irrelevant to that point. I have the same question for TAI.

And the circus begins.

Coups. Not revolutions.

And "trying to form a Marxist totalitarian state" is yours to prove. Which wouldn't justify creating a Capitalist totalitarian state anyways.

Yeah, I think we've had enough of that...

http://www.imediata.com/lancededados/EVIAN/imagens/neoliberalism1.jpg

Yeah, I think we've had enough of that...

http://www.imediata.com/lancededados/EVIAN/imagens/neoliberalism1.jpg

Hitler was an anti-capitalist and an anti-socialist. But that's a topic for another thread...

And the circus begins.

The only circus I'd like to see is the media circus that would form if the Spanish court system successfully tried the Bush administration.

Hitler was an anti-capitalist and an anti-socialist. But that's a topic for another thread...

Didn't Hitler set up what amounts to a Keynesian totalitarian regime?

The economic system is the most important thing.

No, it's not.

The economic system is the most important thing.

If I'm dead tomorrow because of an offhand remark I make today, how the hell can I put food on the table?

Didn't Hitler set up what amounts to a Keynesian totalitarian regime?

Pretty much.

Hitler was an anti-capitalist and an anti-socialist. But that's a topic for another thread...

Joke friend, its mocking Neoliberals, cause the Bushies effectively set up Nazi-capitalist states wherever they go...

If I'm dead tomorrow because of an offhand remark I make today, how the hell can I put food on the table?

You do not, as simple as that. Because according to TAI, the economy system is what matters.

If I'm dead tomorrow because of an offhand remark I make today, how the hell can I put food on the table?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

No, it's not.

If I'm dead tomorrow because of an offhand remark I make today, how the hell can I put food on the table?
You totally missed the point. Both of you.

Economic security is the most important. Because it then allows people to have a job, have income and have food. Food is the basic need when it comes to humans, put far above whether or not they can vote, or write whatever news article they want or whatever.
http://www.greekmovement.com/images/maslow/MaslowsGreeksPyramid.jpg

Pretty much.

Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet... The most important end result of their rule in their respective countries was the same - millions dead and millions missing.

Joke friend, its mocking Neoliberals, cause the Bushies effectively set up Nazi-capitalist states wherever they go...
Uh, what? Where did Bush set up a nazi-capitalist state?

You totally missed the point. Both of you.

Economic security is the most important. Because it then allows people to have a job, have income and have food. Food is the basic need when it comes to humans, put far above whether or not they can vote, or write whatever news article they want or whatever.
http://www.greekmovement.com/images/maslow/MaslowsGreeksPyramid.jpg

I ask again: If I say something offhand today and the military police drag me off in the dead of night and kill me because of it, what does the economic system matter to my family if I'm the only one who could work?

Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet... The most important end result of their rule in their respective countries was the same - millions dead and millions missing.

To be fair, Pinochet didn't kill millions, but numbers don't really matter, IMO. A hundred, a million...who cares? Terrorism and murder are always wrong, and what may seem like a (relatively) small number to some is a lot to the victims and their families. Dictatorship is never justifiable, regardless of which external superpower the dictator pledges allegiance to, or what economic system he supports, or what ideology he follows.

I ask again: If I say something offhand today and the military police drag me off in the dead of night and kill me because of it, what does the economic system matter to my family if I'm the only one who could work?

Once again, according to TAI, the economic system is what matters. You, well, you're just expendable meat.

To be fair, Pinochet didn't kill millions, but numbers don't really matter, IMO. A hundred, a million...who cares? Terrorism and murder are always wrong, and what may seem like a (relatively) small number to some is a lot to the victims and their families. Dictatorship is never justifiable, regardless of which external superpower the dictator pledges allegiance to, or what economic system he supports, or what ideology he follows.

Or, in three words, totalitarianism is totalitarianism.

Uh, what? Where did Bush set up a nazi-capitalist state?

Arguably the United States...then there's Iraq, which he effectively ruled at gunpoint, Afghanistan where the same situation is trying to be mediated...

I ask again: If I say something offhand today and the military police drag me off in the dead of night and kill me because of it, what does the economic system matter to my family if I'm the only one who could work?
Because then it will just be you being hypothetically dragged away, a situation you could have easily avoided and lived through if you kept your mouth shut. Where as with a shitty economic system, it's you and between 2.2 million to 10 million who starve to death due to lack of food, like during the Holodomor in Ukraine due to communist economic policy imposed by the Soviet Union, and there is absolutely ZERO you can do about it.

Don't you see the difference?

Or, in three words, totalitarianism is totalitarianism.

^ This.

Because then it will just be you being hypothetically dragged away, a situation you could have easily avoided and lived through if you shut kept your mouth shut.

have to stop you there, its far less likely for someone to keep their mouth shut than for them to support a Government based on Employment/level of wealth/etc...

Because then it will just be you being hypothetically dragged away, a situation you could have easily avoided and lived through if you shut kept your mouth shut. Where as with a shitty economic system, it's you and between 2.2 million to 10 million who starve to death due to lack of food, like during the Holodomor in Ukraine due to communist economic policy imposed by the Soviet Union, and there is absolutely ZERO you can do about it.

Don't you see the difference?

I have one question for you. Do you see redeeming attributes to a dictatorship? Do you really?

Could it be, you know, possible, if just a little bit, that you are ridiculously misusing the word 'nazi'? ? ?



Didnt I explicitly state that its a joke?


It was the word "Nazi" in the "Generic Totalitarian" sense...

Hitler is arguably the most well known dictator...

It's an idiotic grandstand by extreme Bush-haters that as much chance of actually happening as Osama bin Laden being declared a Catholic saint.

That putz of a prosecutor needs to lay off the sangria. However, it is good for a laugh as another example of self-righteous Euro-leftie stupidity. :tongue:

have to stop you there, its far less likely for someone to keep their mouth shut than for them to support a Government based on Employment/level of wealth/etc...
No it's not. People will support anything if they are starving to death and they see an opportunity for food (and money).

Also, why did you cut out the rest of the arguement to ask me that question. My post was complete with showing the the importance of economic policy over political freedom or whatever.

Hell, a similar yet different case is China. The Chinese government understands that its people will only allow the political and social oppression if China keeps up delivering economic progress and growth. That's why China is super worried about this economic crisis, because if their growth rates fall below a certain level, their populace no longer tolerates that government.

It's an idiotic grandstand by extreme Bush-haters that as much chance of actually happening as Osama bin Laden being declared a Catholic saint.

That putz of a prosecutor needs to lay off the sangria. However, it is good for a laugh as another example of self-righteous Euro-leftie stupidity. :tongue:

If you're trying to coin new expressions (Dark Lord, Obammunist, Islamonazism, etc), you might want to avoid sounding like you do when using them.

That putz of a prosecutor needs to lay off the sangria. However, it is good for a laugh as another example of self-righteous Euro-leftie stupidity. :tongue:

[not a Euro-leftie]Flamebait much?[/not a Euro-leftie]

[not a Euro-leftie]Flamebait much?[/not a Euro-leftie]

If you think so, report it.

It's an idiotic grandstand by extreme Bush-haters that as much chance of actually happening as Osama bin Laden being declared a Catholic saint.

That putz of a prosecutor needs to lay off the sangria. However, it is good for a laugh as another example of self-righteous Euro-leftie stupidity. :tongue:

Spoken like good, ol' New Mitanni I see.:rolleyes:

No it's not. People will support anything if they are starving to death and they see an opportunity for food (and money).

Also, why did you cut out the rest of the arguement to ask me that question. My post was complete with showing the the importance of economic policy over political freedom or whatever.

Hell, a similar yet different case is China. The Chinese government understands that its people will only allow the political and social oppression if China keeps up delivering economic progress and growth. That's why China is super worried about this economic crisis, because if their growth rates fall below a certain level, their populace no longer tolerates that government.

I seriously doubt that, ever hear of the Roman Empire? it was pretty damn wealthy, even at the end, wealthy enough for its remnant to go on for a thousand years, didnt stop the both of them from falling however...

Or perhaps the United States as an example, the Colonists were very employed and very well fed, however when the King refused to hear their pleas for Representation, a Revolution started...

Economic security is the most important. Because it then allows people to have a job, have income and have food. Food is the basic need when it comes to humans, put far above whether or not they can vote, or write whatever news article they want or whatever.


Thereby, you should support Marxist totalitarian dictatorships that guarantee jobs for all and food on the table instead of capitalist dictatorships which guarantee jobs only for a handful, hoards the resources to the elite few and lets the rest starve.

But you don't. You support the latter and only that. We know the sort of person you are TAI, and you're not fooling anyone. Your kind would have been perfectly at home running sweatshops staffed by people whose land you stole after bribing the local police to evict them.

And if people die for it? According to you? All the better!

Thereby, you should support Marxist totalitarian dictatorships that guarantee jobs for all and food on the table

You might as well also ask him to support a Nazi Dictatorship which is guaranteed to grant unprecedented rights to Jews.

Thereby, you should support Marxist totalitarian dictatorships that guarantee jobs for all and food on the table instead of capitalist dictatorships which guarantee jobs only for a handful, hoards the resources to the elite few and lets the rest starve.
Hah! Assuming I fall for the oldest Communist lie there is, you may have a case. But I don't, so you don't. :p

But you don't. You support the latter and only that. We know the sort of person you are TAI, and you're not fooling anyone. Your kind would have been perfectly at home running sweatshops staffed by people whose land you stole after bribing the local police to evict them.
Quite the hypothetical you have got going on over there. :p

Brazil is not the same as Chile and Brazil didn't have the same free-market experiment like Chile did. Like I said, not all dictatorships are the same.

Yes, they all are the same. Show me one dictatorship that was brilliant and didn't cost the life of thousands?

Should I give you a list of the shitty ones? Because if I do, I may never end.

You are missing the point again. I'm not saying the only reason people revolt is due to economic policy, I am saying that if people are starving due to shitty economic policies, there are going to be problems . . . see the difference?

True, but Id wager that lack of Freedoms produces a quicker revolution than lack of food...

afterall, the Soviet union lasted a good Half a Century or so, whereas as soon as Britain began restricting the Colonists ability to govern themselves, it took a mere 13 years...

Yes, they all are the same. Show me one dictatorship that was brilliant and didn't cost the life of thousands?

Should I give you a list of the shitty ones? Because if I do, I may never end.
Hmmm....I tried to look...The closest I can think of is Napoleon Bonaparte...But really he was only Benevolent to the French people.....and went on a killing spree of everyone else around him...

Edit: William of Orange? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_the_Netherlands)

Hmmm....I tried to look...The closest I can think of is Napoleon Bonaparte...But really he was only Benevolent to the French people.....and went on a killing spree of everyone else around him...

Here's one: http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators

Here's one: http://www.conservapedia.com/List_of_dictators

No Mobutu!? FOR SHAME! :mad:

Hmmm....I tried to look...The closest I can think of is Napoleon Bonaparte...But really he was only Benevolent to the French people.....and went on a killing spree of everyone else around him...

Edit: William of Orange? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_I_of_the_Netherlands)
Napoleon also spread the ideals of the Enlightenment. For example, he freed Jews wherever he went.
You agree that the fact that he banned unions severely reduces the importance of the economic freedom there was under Pinochet?
I agree to the first thing you said about economic freedom being important to limit the state.

I agree with the second thing because, while unions can be annoying, you can't just ban them. Limiting their power, like what Thatcher did in the UK, however . . . ;)

But aside from the union issue, here's what's important:

The introduction of major free-market reforms inspired by Milton Friedman. Inflation was drastically reduced, state-owned businesses and social security were privatized, the financial system was deregulated, external tariffs were lowered and non-traditional exports fostered.

True, but Id wager that lack of Freedoms produces a quicker revolution than lack of food...
Nah. Look at the frenh revolution, for example. Or what is happening right now in Zimbabwe where even military guys are starting to break line because of the lack of food for them.

You're not helping your case by saying that seeing the CIA backing of the Afghani resistance against the Soviet Union as an impressive track record is 'the same' as 9/11. In fact, it looks rather silly. :p


Look, the relaxing of control over eastern Europe came under Gorbachev, who headed the Soviet Union between 1985 and 1991. And it was only really in 1988 that the Soviet Union officially dropped the Brezhnev doctrine and allowed Eastern Block nations more freedom in their domestic affairs. While the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was in 1979 (until 1988). In 1981 the CIA really (and Charlie Wilson and that whole awesome story) started getting involved and supporting the resistance against the Soviets. And it was only around 1984 and 1984 that the CIA reallllllly started helping the Afghan resistance to win the war, providing them with big money. You're not really understanding the dates here, as much of what I listed above was before Gorbachev. And are you doubting that the Soviet Empire was an empire?


What the CIA did was help prevent the Soviet and resist the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and show the world that the Soviet Union could be stopped. The CIA helping fight off the Soviets didn't cause 9/11. One could argue that what helped to cause 9/11 was the U.S. not staying in Afghanistan afterwards to help stabalize and secure the country, rebuilding schools and infrastructure and such, though.

See above. Anyway, you fight the wars of the present in the present, and then you live to worry about the future and what it may bring.

Well? What about it? The CIA fought against Soviet aggression and KGB infiltration in Latin-America. Stopping Communism is the responsibility of any free man who believes that people should be able to live free. Communism is enslavement.
1) The "above" is just more of your typical canned BS of cherrypicked snippets from history spun to fit your prior chosen ideology.

2) I never said anything even remotely like the CIA's actions in Afghanistan being the same as 9/11. So everything in connection with that (if indeed anyone else said it) is irrelevant to what I said.

3) What the Soviets were or were not is also irrelevant, this time to whether the CIA have been a bunch of fuck-ups carrying out fucked up policies for decades.

4) Your cavalier non-response to what I actually said I will take as a tacit admission that you have no counter-argument to make. Your BS won't stretch that far. Example: The laughably pathetic failure of that crap about stopping Communism. What the fuck was that supposed to be? Please, don't waste my time -- that wasn't even funny.

Do us all a favor, will you? Don't hand the rest of us the bullshit you make up to needle H2. It's bad enough you do that to him, but to the rest of us it's even more nonsensical.

Nah. Look at the frenh revolution, for example. Or what is happening right now in Zimbabwe where even military guys are starting to break line because of the lack of food for them.

The French Revolution was very much about a lack of freedom for the Third Estate.

Alright for all of you that are bashing on the CIA for some reason... when it does its job right nobody ever knows about it. Sure we know a lot of things they have done wrong, but I am pretty sure that they do a lot more right than they do wrong.
Fine, I'll grant that. But when they screw up, they screw up royally.

Actually, I'll amend that. I really don't think it's them screwing up. It's the ones giving them their orders and assignments.

The French Revolution was very much about a lack of freedom for the Third Estate.

It was indeed, but hunger (and the deplorable standard of living in general for the Third Estate, which undoubtedly correlated with said lack of freedom) also played a role.

3) What the Soviets were or were not is also irrelevant, this time to whether the CIA have been a bunch of fuck-ups carrying out fucked up policies for decades.

...when they even do them properly. Bay of Pigs anyone?

Arguably the only good thing the CIA ever did was helping to overthrow and assassinate Rafael Trujillo, a mass murdering kleptocrat, tyrant, and all-around douchebag. This is not to say we should have done this, only that it wasn't a bad thing to do.

I sincerely do not know what Baltasar Garzon is aiming for. We can't do shit with GWB if the US doesn't cooperate. What's more, GWB is a speck of dust in world affairs. Spain has far more pressing matters that need to be taken care off. I am sick that my government keeps caving in and indulging Garzon's hero ego trip. This is just another big pile of shit we're all heading into.

Besides that, Spain had it's share of crap from the Afghanistan invasion, not to mention the time the troops spent in Iraq.

No debemos predicar la moral en calzones.

It looks hypocritical.

Or, in three words, totalitarianism is totalitarianism.
Well, A = A, so it just follows, doesn't it?

Yes, I can see that. I just don't get why is it that his speech is so ardent, so fervent in defending something he truly doesn't know. Because no matter how many history books, how many socio-political manuscripts he reads, his experience of this is null. And it's sad to see a mind like his so bent in justifying totalitarianism.
Well, to be honest, doesn't he have to be completely ignorant of the truth to be able to spout such crap?

Hah! Assuming I fall for the oldest Communist lie there is, you may have a case. But I don't, so you don't. :p


It's more or less the same lie that ultra-capitalists like to tell. That you just need to roll up your sleeves and you can be a millionaire. They never bother to inform people of the niggling little details like how your opportunities will be limited by factors that aren't in your control, or how people who are already millionaires will do their damnedest that nobody else becomes one and are far more likely to succeed in doing so due to their vaster resources.


Quite the hypothetical you have got going on over there. :p

Chinese sweat shops, supported by American dollars, do this. It's not a hypothetical. Unrestricted capitalism at work. But it's all fine according to you.

Chinese sweat shops, supported by American dollars, do this. It's not a hypothetical. Unrestricted capitalism at work. But it's all fine according to you.

No place on Earth practices unrestricted capitalism; nor does any place practice unrestricted socialism. Neither extreme exists now, and most likely never has or ever will exist.

It's more or less the same lie that ultra-capitalists like to tell. That you just need to roll up your sleeves and you can be a millionaire. They never bother to inform people of the niggling little details like how your opportunities will be limited by factors that aren't in your control, or how people who are already millionaires will do their damnedest that nobody else becomes one and are far more likely to succeed in doing so due to their vaster resources.
What a nice little rant on your version of capitalism which has nothing to do with me falling for communist propaganda. :)



Chinese sweat shops, supported by American dollars, do this. It's not a hypothetical. Unrestricted capitalism at work. But it's all fine according to you.
Chinese sweet shops are providing those people in China with some money as opposed to the vast ammounts of nothing they would have without them.

Chinese sweet shops

I dont think anyone has a problem with sweet shops. Aside from health nuts.

I sincerely do not know what Baltasar Garzon is aiming for. We can't do shit with GWB if the US doesn't cooperate. What's more, GWB is a speck of dust in world affairs. Spain has far more pressing matters that need to be taken care off. I am sick that my government keeps caving in and indulging Garzon's hero ego trip. This is just another big pile of shit we're all heading into.

Besides that, Spain had it's share of crap from the Afghanistan invasion, not to mention the time the troops spent in Iraq.

No debemos predicar la moral en calzones.

It looks hypocritical.
I can't speak for whatever is going on in Spain, but there are many people in and out of the US who are looking for a way to bring criminal charges against Bush, Cheney, et al. It is difficult for a practical reason -- so much of what they did is secret -- and for a political reason -- they were leaders of the last standing superpower, the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world at the time, a country that was officially the ally of the nations seeking to bring indictments against its former leaders, and which is still a free and sovereign state (i.e. not defeated in a war). Unless the current leaders in the US step up and do the right thing -- which they have stated they don't want to do (because it actually is not less problematical to do it domestically) -- then how to make this work is ...well, the solution is not obvious, as my math major brother might say.

But frankly, I would not mind the whole world becoming littered with outstanding warrants and indictments issued in absentia against Bush & Co, even if no one can execute such warrants. Clearing this up may take many years, and in the mean time, at least such dead-end legal actions would prevent history from being rewritten. Remember how much Bush and the Gang love to rewrite history.

I dont think anyone has a problem with sweet shops. Aside from health nuts.

LOL! You get a cookie. :)

What a nice little rant on your version of capitalism which has nothing to do with me falling for communist propaganda. :)

It does point out the kind of morally bankrupt person you are though. Any crime is acceptable for an economic system. Even murder is fine, so long as it is done "for capitalism".


Chinese sweet shops are providing those people in China with some money as opposed to the vast ammounts of nothing they would have without them.

Mmhmm, nice to see that you avoided the point about being evicted from their land by illegal measures and forced to work at vastly reduced standards of living.

I shall take that as a tacit agreement on your part to have your business, home, life savings, assets and every cent you have stolen from you, with the choice of now working for me at 30 cents a day or dying from starvation and exposure.

But I'm not arguing that Pinochet's regime was super happy fantastic fun land, I'm arguing that it was the best course of action for Chile at a time when marxist policy was literally destroying the country.


Let me clarify, since you seem not to be understanding what I'm asking. You're going to need show a source showing how it was the best course of action, as in, you're going to have to provide a source showing how bad living standards were getting under Allende, and one showing how much they improved under Pinochet (or at least, that they didn't get worse). Not only this, you will need to provide a reliable source showing that it was a popular revolution, and not a coup that the US supported.


And you totally avoided by response to you about that economic policy, where I totally answered your question and showed you my point.

That's because it's irrelevant.

LOL! You get a cookie. :)

I dont think anyone has a problem with sweet shops. Aside from health nuts.
Sweets are a Commie plot to impurify our teeth. (and our fluids) ;)

Sweets are a Commie plot to impurify our teeth. (and our fluids) ;)

lolz

Which still, and you fail to see this, doesn't justify his means. You do not understand this at all, do you? To you it's about the economy. I hope that if there's a coming back, you do not come back and live in the hell of a dictatorship. You speak confidently from the comfort of history. Tell this to those who lost loved ones because of Pinochet. Tell this to the many that were persecuted. Tell this to the people who carry the scars of those years. I am done with you and your apologetics of Augusto Pinochet and every single regime the world has seen.

Bah, that's just TAI and his 'what about all the good things Hitler did' bullshit. Best to ignore it.

What's the matter TAI? Not so supportive of capitalism when it's you who gets screwed over?

Bah, that's just TAI and his 'what about all the good things Hitler did' bullshit. Best to ignore it.
Franz Liebkind: You know, not many people know zis, but der Fuhrer was a terrific dancer.
Max Bialystock: Really? Gee, we didn't know that, did we, Leo?
Leo Bloom: No, we sure didn't.
Franz Liebkind: THAT'S BECAUSE YOU WERE TAKEN IN BY THE BBC! Filthy British lies! But did they ever say a bad word about Winston Churchill? CHURCHILL!
[gags]
Franz Liebkind: With his cigars, and his brandy, and his ROTTEN paintings! ROTTEN! Hitler, there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! Two coats!
That's kind of how about half the posts in this thread read to me.

It does point out the kind of morally bankrupt person you are though. Any crime is acceptable for an economic system. Even murder is fine, so long as it is done "for capitalism".
Murder is not fine. Self defense, when you are defending your economic (and all other, actually) freedom against Marxism, is fine.



I shall take that as a tacit agreement on your part to have your business, home, life savings, assets and every cent you have stolen from you
Hmmm . . . where did I say that?

Let me clarify, since you seem not to be understanding what I'm asking. You're going to need show a source showing how it was the best course of action, as in, you're going to have to provide a source showing how bad living standards were getting under Allende, and one showing how much they improved under Pinochet (or at least, that they didn't get worse). Not only this, you will need to provide a reliable source showing that it was a popular revolution, and not a coup that the US supported.
Ok, so I showed you what happend under Pinochet, now here it what Chile was like under Allende right before Pinochet took over:

In addition to the hyperinflation and the fall in the value of copper, the lack of economic aid further depressed the economy. The growth in GDP went from 9% in 1971 to –1.2% in 1972, while the rate of inflation went from 22.1% the previous year to 163.4%. Vuskovic was replaced as Minister of Economy on June 17, 1972, and the Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries, but the damage was already done. Chile had entered a major recession, with hyperinflation, a negative growth in GDP, a lack of supplies and spare parts, as well as a state of general political and social disorder. His implementation of these policies led to strong opposition by landowners, some middle-class sectors, the rightist National Party, the Roman Catholic Church (which was displeased with the direction of the educational policy[9]), and eventually the Christian Democrats. By September 1973, inflation had reached 381.1% and the growth in GDP stood at -4.2% [8].


That's because it's irrelevant.
No it's not. I showed you Chie's economic situation, as a direct result of the policies and reforms that Pinochet created, which succesive governments have continued. That is super duper relevant.

Bah, that's just TAI and his 'what about all the good things Hitler did' bullshit. Best to ignore it.

I'm sigging! :D

Murder is not fine. Self defense, when you are defending your economic (and all other, actually) freedom against Marxism, is fine.

In short, you support mass murder in the name of imposing an economic system. Makes you no different than the likes of Stalin.


Hmmm . . . where did I say that?


When you spoke in support of eviction of people from their homes and farms by illegal means in order to construct factories that would employ the now landless people at below subsistence levels.

<snip>
No it's not. I showed you Chie's economic situation, as a direct result of the policies and reforms that Pinochet created, which succesive governments have continued. That is super duper relevant.

Actually, no, you have not shown anyone anything. Correlation is not causation. And you haven't even really proven correlation, either. All you are doing is making a claim, then quoting a bunch of facts, but you are NOT actually connecting the facts to your claims. You have to connect the dots, lalalala. You are not doing that. You never do that. It's because you can't. Because they don't connect.

Actually, no, you have not shown anyone anything. Correlation is not causation. And you haven't even really proven correlation, either. All you are doing is making a claim, then quoting a bunch of facts, but you are NOT actually connecting the facts to your claims. You have to connect the dots, lalalala. You are not doing that. You never do that. It's because you can't. Because they don't connect.
What doesn't connect, actually? The fac that Pinochet created many economic reforms intended to turn the country around from the direction Allende was bringing it? The fact that said reforms ended up working? Or the fact that successive governments, even those who didn't really like Pinochet, have continued said economic policy?

That's kind of how about half the posts in this thread read to me.

When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
Not to love Der Fuehrer is a great disgrace
So we HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Herr Gobbels says, "We own der world und space"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring's face
When Herr Goring says they'll never bomb this place
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Herr Goring's face

Are we not the supermen
Aryan pure supermen
Ja we ist der supermen
Super-duper supermen
Ist this Nutzi land not good?
Would you leave it if you could?
Ja this Nutzi land is good!
Vee would leave it if we could

We bring the world to order
Heil Hitler's world New Order
Everyone of foreign race will love Der Fuehrer's face
When we bring to der world disorder

When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuehrer's face
When Der Fuehrer says, "We ist der master race"
We HEIL! HEIL! Right in Der Fuhrer's face

In short, you support mass murder in the name of imposing an economic system.
Nope.


When you spoke in support of eviction of people from their homes and farms by illegal means in order to construct factories that would employ the now landless people at below subsistence levels.
I didn't. I spoke in support of people getting paid ridiculously low amounts of money in China, often in sweatshops, because the alternative was no income.

Nope.

Then you don't support Pinochet or the Brazilian Dictatorship.

Nope.


So I'm supposed to pretend that you haven't been spending the last few pages arguing that installing mass murderers like Pinochet was a good thing based on some nebulous idea that he made some unproven changes to the economic system?


I didn't. I spoke in support of people getting paid ridiculously low amounts of money in China, often in sweatshops, because the alternative was no income.

Because they had that alternative stolen from them by illegal means. And you spoke in support of the whole. You're trying to worm your way out of this.

Wriggle all you want, but that's not going to stop your wormlike behavior from being called on.

I'm mixed on this...part of me wants to see that bastard Bush and Cheney get what they deserve...but I want it to be the American people who do it, not some Euros.

I think most of us do. But I'll take what I can get.

Fighting back against the formation of a marxist totalitarian state is self defense. That was my point.

Which falls back to the same point. Murder in the name of an economic system is fine with you.

So how about this then? My economic freedom is hampered by yours. Thereby, I am justified in murdering you in the name of greater economic freedom for myself.


You asked me if I supported people working in sweat shops, I said yes.

You asked me if I support siezing people's land and property and such, I said no.

Liar.

Your kind would have been perfectly at home running sweatshops staffed by people whose land you stole after bribing the local police to evict them.

And if people die for it? According to you? All the better!


Chinese sweat shops, supported by American dollars, do this. It's not a hypothetical. Unrestricted capitalism at work. But it's all fine according to you.


Chinese sweet shops are providing those people in China with some money as opposed to the vast ammounts of nothing they would have without them.

Wriggle some more, why don't you?

Wait wait wait....

We can almost bet our lives on your source almost always being the Economist, but youre calling someone else's source biased? And you didnt even read the whole thing?

Try not to think about it too much.

Which falls back to the same point. Murder in the name of an economic system is fine with you.
No, it's not murder to impose a system, it's defense to resist a system being imposed upon me.

Liar

Don't try to copy and paste stuff around to make it seem like I said something. Here was my direct response to taking people's land:

But you don't. You support the latter and only that. We know the sort of person you are TAI, and you're not fooling anyone. Your kind would have been perfectly at home running sweatshops staffed by people whose land you stole after bribing the local police to evict them.
Quite the hypothetical you have got going on over there. :p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14646045&postcount=175

Yes but if you take that sort of approach, it's more difficult to justify murder, torture and disappearances, like TAI does.

Nothing justifies those things.

The rest that followed the first statement it made, which was so ridiculously incorrect than a student taking Econ 101 could have refuted it. Ah, so you give up. Trying to save face of course, because you can't refute the stats...playing little games about 'nu-uh your first sentence was wrong therefore it all must be wrong neener neener' doesn't actually work.


Puh-lease. :p

Sending me wrong information does not equal proving me wrong, although they sound similar because both statements have the word 'wrong' in them.

You've yet to prove my information wrong.

It's okay...we all know you don't actually have the intent or capability to debate this topic honestly...you never have, and I certainly wouldn't expect it now. It's just nice every once in a while to make sure everyone sees you for what you are. Though really, I don't actually think that was a problem for anyone.

Ok, we're getting nowhere. I've made my claims and backed them up. Let's try this.

What caused this:

Well, Chile has the lowest level of corruption in Latin-America, lowest level of unemployment (7%) in South America, and lowest level of people living under the line of poverty (18.2%) in South America. Chile also has the highest GDP per capita in Latin America ($14,300).

. . . if it wasn't Pinochet's economic reforms?
I refer you back to the long post of Neesika's which you tried to ignore, but which the rest of us didn't. So pretending it's not here is not going to get you anywhere.

Also, I have had just about enough of your little hijack. It is boring because it is nothing but the same old BS from you. The fact that you are reduced already to ignoring massive amounts of information posted while presenting the exact same questions to another poster as if you'll get a different answer (as if I wouldn't just refer you back to Nees's post), only proves that you have nothing to add and nowhere else to take this.

So, do you or do you not have anything of relevance or interest to say about the actual topic of this thread, which is about Spain considering bringing war crimes charges against members of the Bush administration?

playing little games about 'nu-uh your first sentence was wrong
So you admit that the openning claim that your source made was wrong? :)

No, it's not murder to impose a system, it's defense to resist a system being imposed upon me.

Bollocks. You're still imposing a system, and thereby, by your logic, still a valid target for murder to impose MY system.


Don't try to copy and paste stuff around to make it seem like I said something. Here was my direct response to taking people's land:


You called it a hypothetical. I pointed out that it wasn't. And then you spoke in support of it. Wriggle some more, liar. You won't get away that easily.

So you admit that the openning claim that your source made was wrong? :)
By the way, I have asked you if you have anything further to say on the thread's topic. Do you or don't you? This is the second inquiry.

I'm not just calling her source biased, I am showing why it's fucking incorrect, not just biased. I'll ask you though, do you think the article was correct in stating this?

Now hold on. Was that whole portion of text another source, or was it completely the work of Neesika? Neesika, could you clear that one up? Because he's treating what you copied and pasted as an individual source, which it may be, but it might be original content by you.

Bollocks. You're still imposing a system.
No, because the system that was in place under Allende was a marxist economic system that the 1973 coup was a defense AGAINST.


You called it a hypothetical. I pointed out that it wasn't. And then you spoke in support of it. Wriggle some more, liar. You won't get away that easily.
Lol, you are trying to make an issue out of nothing. You started rambling about me supporting land siezures, which I said that's a ridiculous hypothetical (I'll give you a hint...that doesn't mean "yes, I do"). Then you asked me if I supported sweat shops. I said I do support them having some work, even for ridiculously low pay, over no work.

I do not support land siezures. I have never said I do. You are arguing for no reason because you don't support land siezures (I'm assuming) and neither do I.

By the way, I have asked you if you have anything further to say on the thread's topic. Do you or don't you? This is the second inquiry.
If you feel like this thread is too far off topic, ask the mods to close it. Nobody is flaming here or anything, we are just having a nice discussion.

Don't be a day-damper.

Now hold on. Was that whole portion of text another source, or was it completely the work of Neesika? Neesika, could you clear that one up? Because he's treating what you copied and pasted as an individual source, which it may be, but it might be original content by you.

It's original content except where quoted directly, with sources below. Of course, it makes more sense to focus on one statement rather than deal with the rest of the stats that decimate his argument.

Alright, time for beddy-bye, it's not as though I expect TAI to suddenly develop some intellectual honesty any time soon. Night!

If you feel like this thread is too far off topic, ask the mods to close it. Nobody is flaming here or anything, we are just having a nice discussion.

Don't be a day-damper.
I take that as a "No, you don't have anything of relevance or interest to say about the thread topic."

Thank you. I'm going to put you on ignore now, to avoid having my screen filled up with your empty arguments. Since you have already run your course (and lapped yourself) there is no further purpose in paying attention to your "yay, dictators" BS.

By the way, I have asked you if you have anything further to say on the thread's topic. Do you or don't you? This is the second inquiry.

Cut him a break, he wasn't expecting the NSquisition!

It's original content except where quoted directly, with sources below. Of course, it makes more sense to focus on one statement rather than deal with the rest of the stats that decimate his argument.

Alright, time for beddy-bye, it's not as though I expect TAI to suddenly develop some intellectual honesty any time soon. Night!
Getting a response from someone like TAI is not really the point though, is it. It's more to highlight the emptiness of his arguments for the rest of the world. The fact that he tried to invalidate everything else in your post on the basis of his personal objection to one piece of rhetoric in it only enhances that demonstration. He has made it clear enough to me that he is not worth engaging on the topic of US Latin America policy, as he really knows nothing about it. And since he refuses to address the thread topic...there's really nothing more to be done with him.

Cut him a break, he wasn't expecting the NSquisition!
He would have if he had read the thread title!!! :p

Just like that idiot US politician who advocated armed revolution and is now pretending she never did.

Bachmann. Not exactly our most exemplary Minnesotan.

Bachmann. Not exactly our most exemplary Minnesotan.

Well, there's "Minnesota nice" and "Minnesota insane". :p

He would have if he had read the thread title!!! :p

That's the point. Even if you do read the thread title, you just don't expect it. NSG has amnesiac properties keyed to ideas of an NSquisition.

Well, there's "Minnesota nice" and "Minnesota insane". :p

rofl

That's the point. Even if you do read the thread title, you just don't expect it. NSG has amnesiac properties keyed to ideas of an NSquisition.
In other words, NSGers are prone to be surprised that anyone would ever question them about anything, every single time it happens? ;)

He would have if he had read the thread title!!! :p

Nobody expects the NSquisition!

In other words, NSGers are prone to be surprised that anyone would ever question them about anything, every single time it happens? ;)

Most of the time. It's a particularly strong affliction for the dogmatic ones who are sovereign against petty things like proof, evidence and causality.

It's original content except where quoted directly, with sources below. Of course, it makes more sense to focus on one statement rather than deal with the rest of the stats that decimate his argument.

Alright, time for beddy-bye, it's not as though I expect TAI to suddenly develop some intellectual honesty any time soon. Night!

Although I have some issues with that post, especially the references to 'shock treatment' (I have very little regard for that Klein nonsense), I still think it's important for TAI to note that it's an original argument, so he should address it all or at least the most relevant parts. Unlike a source, where it's not so bad to disregard it based on one major error, a poster does not have to be unbiased and always correct in everything they say before what they say can be addressed.

Pinochet took power in a bloody coup on September 11, 1973. Between 1973 and 1989, Chile was the absolute model of a decentralised economy. Industries nationalized by Salvador Allende were privatised, and this privitisation continued on into the social sector. The Chicago School of Economics (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm) (free market libertarianism) was given free reign for 16 years in Chile in order to prove its economic model.
This is a bit of a derailment, and I don't intend to detract from the subject at hand.

Nonetheless, the point must be made that the Chicago School of Economics is not Free Market, but rather Neoclassical. Pure Free Market Capitalism does not rely on economic models, nor does it accept Milton Friedman's stances on monetarism: government regulation via a central bank and money supply management. Friedman's acceptance of money supply management by a central entity is, fundamentally, not a free market.

Argh! *clutches head* We've had I-don't-know-how-much back and forth between people on the subject of Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile, but would it be perhaps maybe possible to discuss the actual OP? Because having read through all this stuff on Chile, it looks to me like various people banging their heads together, trying to crack each others' heads. Which is not actually all that fun as a spectator sport.

Now: I'm interested in this Baltazar Garzon fellow. Evidently he has both balls and chops, given that he issued an arrest warrant for Pinochet. What else is good to know about him? How is he likely to rule? I also note that this case does not target the President or the Vice-President themselves, just their legal counsel. Is Spain testing the waters to see how big a ripple they make before possibly moving up? Or do they think that those are too large fish to land?

Well, A = A, so it just follows, doesn't it?

It doesn't matter what a murderous dictator murders for. He's still a murderer.

By the way, I have asked you if you have anything further to say on the thread's topic. Do you or don't you? This is the second inquiry.

I have something: Prison or no prison, I would smile wide if the Bush administration actually got convicted for their war crimes.

Me too. To me, simply having Bush go down in history as a convicted war criminal, and having to spend the rest of his life watching where he travels, would go a long way towards asserting the principle that no one is above the law. Prison might be desired, but every victory for Justice is a step in the right direction.

It doesn't matter what a murderous dictator murders for. He's still a murderer.

^ This.

The Chile discussion has been split from this thread. It can be found (and continued) here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=588335&page=6).

Murder is not fine. Self defense, when you are defending your economic (and all other, actually) freedom against Marxism, is fine.


So killing in defense of any ideology other than marxism is fine. Let's say, dunno, killing in defense of liberism or nazism.

Really, TAI, I know you're not exactly a left-winger, but isn't advocating moral double standards based on ideology a bit too... lowly?

Look, the relaxing of control over eastern Europe came under Gorbachev.... And are you doubting that the Soviet Empire was an empire?


Explain how the disengagement from Afghanistan caused the Soviet Union to collapse (or helped that process). I think that the collapse of the Soviet Union was mostly an internal one, and based on a vast economical crisis.

1.the soviet exit strategy from Afghanistan began in 1985. (see wiki)
2.Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time). (see wiki)
(I don't think that employing 100000 soldiers would have been a real stress on the soviet forces back in the '80s: by comparison the Western coalition is currently deploying 80000 soldiers between ISAF and non-ISAF forces, plus 50000 afghani troops).

3.The Brezhnev doctrine (which had already been enacted by Khrushev with Hungary, btw) was effectively dropped already by Jurij Andropov, as hinted by the fact that the Soviets didn't invade Poland in the early '80s. And remember that it was Andropov (and later Chernenko) who lobbied at the Central Committee to have Gorbachev elected. A shift was already taking place in the early '80s.

The Soviet Union was an empire no less and no more than the USA is. A central superpower surrounded by satellite states who have limited sovereignity - the CIA oversees to that just like the KGB did. When a satellite country begins to get uppity: assasinations, or invasion, or coup, or fueling civil war. Italy, Greece, Chile, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Argentina, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Venezuela, Philippines, Afghanistan...


What the CIA did was help prevent the Soviet and resist the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and show the world that the Soviet Union could be stopped. The CIA helping fight off the Soviets didn't cause 9/11. One could argue that what helped to cause 9/11 was the U.S. not staying in Afghanistan afterwards to help stabalize and secure the country, rebuilding schools and infrastructure and such, though.

Too bad that:
1.the CIA stood in Afghanistan, as proven by the contacts the Talibunnies had up to spring 2001 with the USA (see visit of Talibunny delegation to America).
2.as usual, the USA didn't give a fuck about the conditions of Afghani people, as proven by the fact that they did NOTHING, not even a symbolic stance at the UN, against the Talibunny regime
3.as usual, the USA were there to control oil routes and drug production. Take a world map, compare US military interventions in the last 50 years, oil-producing countries, oilpipe routes, and drug-producing countries. 99% match!

Well? What about it? The CIA fought against Soviet aggression and KGB infiltration in Latin-America. Stopping Communism is the responsibility of any free man who believes that people should be able to live free. Communism is enslavement.
There has never been a Soviet aggression in Latin America. There has been, instead, a continuous US grip on Latin America, enacted through CIA supporting fascist dictatorships.
Also, communism is enslavement exactly as much as capitalism is. That is, there are different sorts of it, as you might know. Authoritarianism is enslavement. If you would say that "stopping authoritarianism is the duty of any free man etc" I would agree with you: sadly you're "forgetting" that there have been, and still are, a lot of authoritarian non-communist regimes around. Your ideological drive ruins the moral validity of your stances quite a lot.

This:


Even short of that, an outstanding warrant for such severe crimes would essentially make those named in it prisoners within the US. If they were to leave the US and go to any country that either would honor the warrant or turn a blind eye to another country coming in to exercise the warrant, they could be arrested and taken into foreign custody.

It would be interesting to see if someday in the future, even the US might turn such a blind eye. (Nah, that would never happen, but a person can dream.)

On principle. I personally, as well as many if not most other Americans, would (figuratively) demand the heads of all those responsible for such a grievous transgression. Hopefully quickly followed by an ultimatum to return said abductees, or face immediate reprisal.

Bah, that's just TAI and his 'what about all the good things Hitler did' bullshit. Best to ignore it.

I will. :wink:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52R2AF20090328



This may not help our US/Spain relations. Everyone's been clamoring for Bush and his cronies to be indicted, and this is the first step on a long uphill battle.

Does this make NSG happy? Did anyone expect it out of Spain?

They, the Spanish, would be historical experts on the subject.

They, the Spanish, would be historical experts on the subject.

Be that as it may, it's still hypocritical of my government to ask for GWB & Co.'s blood. Ex-president Aznar had as much of a hand in the Afghani invasion and the subsequent Iraqi war as GWB. It may be interesting to see what happens, but I don't see this boding well.

Be that as it may, it's still hypocritical of my government to ask for GWB & Co.'s blood. Ex-president Aznar had as much of a hand in the Afghani invasion and the subsequent Iraqi war as GWB. It may be interesting to see what happens, but I don't see this boding well.

Don't ya know, it is cool to go after Bush and there is much more fame in getting him then some two bit former President.

I use two-bit former President in the highest regard, I am not implying that your nation nor the position of President of Spain is some meaningless thing.

Don't ya know, it is cool to go after Bush and there is much more fame in getting him then some two bit former President.

I use two-bit former President in the highest regard, I am not implying that your nation nor the position of President of Spain is some meaningless thing.

Don;t worry, I know what you mean. It's just that for us, this new "killer" hunt of Baltasar Garzón is tiring. Pinochet, some dictator in Africa or Asia (I don't quite remember), the mass graves in Spain and now GWB... it's a bit too much.

Don;t worry, I know what you mean. It's just that for us, this new "killer" hunt of Baltasar Garzón is tiring. Pinochet, some dictator in Africa or Asia (I don't quite remember), the mass graves in Spain and now GWB... it's a bit too much.

Yeah, now I know it may be Spanish law to be able to do these things if they have affected Spanish citizens but surely Spain has enough criminals that are committing serious crime in its borders for the courts and the police to be chasing and seeking justice.

Yeah, now I know it may be Spanish law to be able to do these things if they have affected Spanish citizens but surely Spain has enough criminals that are committing serious crime in its borders for the courts and the police to be chasing and seeking justice.

My point exactly. If Garzón wants a witch-hubt, he can aim for those committing cruelty acts against the African refugees arriving at our shores. We have a huge problem with that. If he's for blood, why doesn't he keeps processing those who helped Franco. Many are still alive.

But no, he's aiming for Dubya. Let the Americans deal with their own crap. That's how I see it.

Be that as it may, it's still hypocritical of my government to ask for GWB & Co.'s blood. Ex-president Aznar had as much of a hand in the Afghani invasion and the subsequent Iraqi war as GWB. It may be interesting to see what happens, but I don't see this boding well.
I chalk it all up to political posturing. What else is going on? Elections? Big vote?

The CIA is nothing but a murder mill. They've sparked and propped up so many coups since the end of WWII. It's a liability.

Iran, 1953
Italy, many times between 1953 and the '80s
Guatemala, 1954
Cuba, 1959 (Yes, that's right - the United States is responsible for Castro being in power in the first place!)
Zaire/DRC, 1960
Iraq, 1963
Brazil, 1964
Ghana, 1966
Greece, 1967
Iraq, 1968
Chile, 1973
Afghanistan, 1973-74
Argentina, 1976
Afghanistan, 1978-present
Turkey, 1980
Nicaragua, 1981-90

And the list goes on.

I agree with the guy who posted before me on this: I see an impressive track record. Some of them I disagree with, but in the case of Afghanistan or Congo I purely think we did a good job. Additionally: take a look at Afghanistan in 2000-2001: who do you think lead the spear in the war? The CIA. Read the book "Jawbreaker", it talks all about that.

I chalk it all up to political posturing. What else is going on? Elections? Big vote?

Social problems, problems with immigration, problems with people not making ends meet, problems with people losing their homes, social security, external debt. That's what's going on. The witch-hunt for GWB is superfluous at best.

Social problems, problems with immigration, problems with people not making ends meet, problems with people losing their homes, social security, external debt. That's what's going on. The witch-hunt for GWB is superfluous at best.
Ah, then it's a distraction. Make everyone worry about a common enemy and they'll forget their own problems for a while. Fine, while it works...

Ah, then it's a distraction. Make everyone worry about a common enemy and they'll forget their own problems for a while. Fine, while it works...

It works, but it's hardly a solution to a problem. Mostly, we're just tired of Baltasar Garzón.

Good luck getting a conviction or co-operation.

Good luck getting a conviction or co-operation.

We won't get it. It's uselss to even propose such a thing. Let the Americans deal with GW Bush and his goons.

One of the only Chuck Norris jokes I ever truly enjoyed:

"Chuck Norris expects the Spanish Inquisition."

Me too. To me, simply having Bush go down in history as a convicted war criminal, and having to spend the rest of his life watching where he travels, would go a long way towards asserting the principle that no one is above the law. Prison might be desired, but every victory for Justice is a step in the right direction.
As I said earlier, but I'll repeat it to try to get past the Pinochet hijack, at the very least it would prevent Bush & Co from rewriting history on us.


On principle. I personally, as well as many if not most other Americans, would (figuratively) demand the heads of all those responsible for such a grievous transgression. Hopefully quickly followed by an ultimatum to return said abductees, or face immediate reprisal.
I wouldn't. More likely, I would express shock -- SHOCK! -- that anyone would take such liberties across our borders and express a strong wish that they call us next time. Tut-tut. But demand the return of those murderous bastards? Well, we'll have to review our files and get back to somebody about that.

As I said earlier, but I'll repeat it to try to get past the Pinochet hijack, at the very least it would prevent Bush & Co from rewriting history on us.

Even if it's only symbolic, it would be victory for justice.

Even if it's only symbolic, it would be victory for justice.

Most definitely.

Most definitely.

Besides (since most of that administration consisted of Protestants and Charismatics, I'll use their wording), when Jesus comes back, they're finished.

Besides (since most of that administration consisted of Protestants and Charismatics, I'll use their wording), when Jesus comes back, they're finished.

Amen. But until He does, human justice is all they have to subject themselves to. I wish this wasn't an affair in which Spain was involved.

Amen. But until He does, human justice is all they have to subject themselves to. I wish this wasn't an affair in which Spain was involved.

I wish Attorney General Holder would grow some hair on his nuts and press charges already, but better in Spain than nowhere.

I wish Attorney General Holder would grow some hair on his nuts and press charges already, but better in Spain than nowhere.

I know what you mean. Still, I don't see this leading anywhere. As many have already stated, unless the US cooperates, Garzón's motives will go unheard and unsatisfied.

I know what you mean. Still, I don't see this leading anywhere. As many have already stated, unless the US cooperates, Garzón's motives will go unheard and unsatisfied.
Unsatisfied but not unheard.

Unsatisfied but not unheard.

I am aware of that. Still, this is a mess that pertains to the Americans. GWB was your president, grow hair in your collective balls and demand justice, as a country. (In no way am I talking directly of you, Mur'v-chama. Don't think I'm trying to be offensive or anything.)

I am aware of that. Still, this is a mess that pertains to the Americans. GWB was your president, grow hair in your collective balls and demand justice, as a country. (In no way am I talking directly of you, Mur'v-chama. Don't think I'm trying to be offensive or anything.)

Actually, you are being offensive.

Unlike the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush was my president. I'm glad he did what was necessary. I only wish he'd done more. I and millions of other Americans will never permit some left-wing punk in a foreign kangaroo court to implement a political vendetta against him and members of his administration. Nor, I suspect, will the Spanish government, assuming they have enough grown-ups on hand to make decisions.

President Bush got the job done. You all couldn't stop it. You can't do anything about it now. You will never be able to do anything about it. So get over it and find some other fantasy to gratify yourself with.

Actually, you are being offensive.

Unlike the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush was my president. I'm glad he did what was necessary. I only wish he'd done more. I and millions of other Americans will never permit some left-wing punk in a foreign kangaroo court to implement a political vendetta against him and members of his administration. Nor, I suspect, will the Spanish government, assuming they have enough grown-ups on hand to make decisions.

President Bush got the job done. You all couldn't stop it. You can't do anything about it now. You will never be able to do anything about it. So get over it and find some other fantasy to gratify yourself with.


Wow someone farther to the right than me...

Foreign Policy-wise, I could care less about what happened. But domestically, he did totally drop the ball inregards to numerous travesties against the constitution (not only blaming him though, I hold all of Congress responsible for those).

Oh and whether you like it or not, Obama is your president. I didn't vote for him, but he is still the leader of my country.

I know what you mean. Still, I don't see this leading anywhere.
It will lead to those officials being afraid to travel overseas. Not as much of a punishment as being imprisoned, but it may be all they ever get, so it's something.

Unlike the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush was my president.

Silence America hating traitor. Don't you have a rebellion to plot? Or are you afraid that the Uruk Hai will get you?

You really have to wonder about this guy sometimes.

It will lead to those officials being afraid to travel overseas. Not as much of a punishment as being imprisoned, but it may be all they ever get, so it's something.

I wouldn't mind not seeing Bush and his goons banned from Spain. But I do recognize that if anyone wants justice it should befall only in the hands of the American justice system.

I wouldn't mind not seeing Bush and his goons banned from Spain. But I do recognize that if anyone wants justice it should befall only in the hands of the American justice system.

That may not be true. Some of the crimes Bush & Co could be charged with would be crimes under international law, in which case, an international justice system could appropriately pursue them. The US is a signatory to the treaties that set such laws and, as such is bound by them and obligated to investigate and prosecute under them. But if our government WILL NOT, then there is no reason why another signatory government SHOULD NOT, as far as I know.

If anything, the lack of action by my own government could be just another crime under those treaties, for which we should be held accountable.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of countries, including my own, getting away with all kinds of shit with no reprisals for it. As I find my own country's crimes to be absolutely disgusting and outrageous, I am more than happy to sacrifice my own leaders for the sake of the law. After all, the US claims to be a nation under the rule of law. High time to let the law rule, then.

Actually, you are being offensive.


Asking that those breaking the law, should be held accountable?

You're offended by that?


Wow... you're going to HATE the Constitution. If you ever read it.

I and millions of other Americans will never permit some left-wing punk in a foreign kangaroo court to implement a political vendetta against him and members of his administration.


Political vendetta? I think you're reaching, some.

Unless you're also going to argue that - for example - holding bin Ladin accountable for HIS actions, would be 'political vendetta'.


Nor, I suspect, will the Spanish government, assuming they have enough grown-ups on hand to make decisions.

President Bush got the job done.


Yep. He totally caught bin Ladin. And, thank the gods there's no more Al-Qaeda.


You all couldn't stop it. You can't do anything about it now.


Bush can (and should) be tried for his crimes.

If somewhere like Spain tries him in absentia, and finds him guilty, they'll have 'done something'.

I think you are confusing what would be allowed to come of it, with what can be done.

That may not be true. Some of the crimes Bush & Co could be charged with would be crimes under international law, in which case, an international justice system could appropriately pursue them. The US is a signatory to the treaties that set such laws and, as such is bound by them and obligated to investigate and prosecute under them. But if our government WILL NOT, then there is no reason why another signatory government SHOULD NOT, as far as I know.

If anything, the lack of action by my own government could be just another crime under those treaties, for which we should be held accountable.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of countries, including my own, getting away with all kinds of shit with no reprisals for it. As I find my own country's crimes to be absolutely disgusting and outrageous, I am more than happy to sacrifice my own leaders for the sake of the law. After all, the US claims to be a nation under the rule of law. High time to let the law rule, then.


Mura-chan, Spain is not precisely the best choice to try GW Bush in absentia. We had our part to play on the Iraqi fiasco. The only reason why our troops were pulled from Iraq was because Aznar lost the elections to Rodríguez Zapatero, and he called the troops back home. We have bloody hands too, it's, once again, a hypocrite move on the part of Garzón to want to try GWB and his goons.

It's fucked up that the US's political powers that be get away with a lot, yes, I do understand that. But there's nothing any country can do, even if it's with the best intentions, if your government doesn't cooperate and hands in Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. This is a moot fight, unfortunate to say, but it is.

Actually, you are being offensive.

No, she isn't.

And if what she said offends you solely for being against Bush, then, I will remind you that, regarding third parties, you do not have the right not to be offended, not even here.

To drive the point home, let me tell you what I think Bush deserves.

***Bankai: Konjiki Ashisogi Jizou***

If it was a legal and possible punishment:

Bush first would deserve to be flown to a random country for "interrogation", with it being made clear to him that said "interrogation" is quite like HIS ideas of not-torture. And then it gets worse. Bush should be told that his loved ones, minus Laura (save her for later) suffered the same fate as him (a lie, but he would not find out it was a lie). Drugs should be administered to him to mess with his perception of time. This last part, regularly. His eyes should be gouged out with him fully aware. His tongue and ears, cut. His fingernails, pulled off with rusty pliers. Add quite a bit of XXX-rated stuff that I would do better not posting here but would be spiky. After which, an iron maiden experiment to see how long until he screamed and begged to have it done to Laura instead of him. Get him out, tell him they will (Again, they won't, but he'd not know). Describe in graphic detail what "happened" to her, adding that she never broke nor asked for it to be done to Bush instead of her. Then lock him alone in a cell for the rest of his life, giving him to eat a gruel that nourishes, but is prepared to taste horrible. No spoon. If at all possible, a way to bind his soul after death for future (eternal) torture would be desirable. In such a way that Bush's broken, insane self does not even get to scream.

Forever.

That's what I think Bush deserves. If there is a Hell, Bush is going right there.

<snip immense hate>

You know, your post is very very angry. Seriously? You think the best way to punish someone is becoming even worse than they are?

Try him in a court of law like a civilized human being would. All the rest of that is just becoming even worse than the person you hate.

You know, your post is very very angry. Seriously? You think the best way to punish someone is becoming even worse than they are?

Try him in a court of law like a civilized human being would. All the rest of that is just becoming even worse than the person you hate.

I'm making a point to NM, actually.

Mura-chan, Spain is not precisely the best choice to try GW Bush in absentia. We had our part to play on the Iraqi fiasco. The only reason why our troops were pulled from Iraq was because Aznar lost the elections to Rodríguez Zapatero, and he called the troops back home. We have bloody hands too, it's, once again, a hypocrite move on the part of Garzón to want to try GWB and his goons.

It's fucked up that the US's political powers that be get away with a lot, yes, I do understand that. But there's nothing any country can do, even if it's with the best intentions, if your government doesn't cooperate and hands in Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. This is a moot fight, unfortunate to say, but it is.
I completely understand what you are saying.

I think the only point we might disagree on is that I don't think the fight is wasted even though it is moot. It should still be done, if only because it will set the truth in history. And possibly, it might lay the groundwork for real action later on. My hope is that the Obama admin will be shamed by international as well as domestic pressure to stop shielding these criminals and take action in accordance with our treaties and our own law.

I completely understand what you are saying.

I think the only point we might disagree on is that I don't think the fight is wasted even though it is moot. It should still be done, if only because it will set the truth in history. And possibly, it might lay the groundwork for real action later on. My hope is that the Obama admin will be shamed by international as well as domestic pressure to stop shielding these criminals and take action in accordance with our treaties and our own law.

We can only hope Obama does do something. It is in his hands. I personally don't see anything happening any time soon. True, if something were to happen, it would vindicate history, it would vindicate those who suffered due to GWB's actions, not only the victims in the Middle East, but your countrymen, those who lost a father, a brother, a son, a friend, a sister.

We can only hope Obama does do something. It is in his hands. I personally don't see anything happening any time soon. True, if something were to happen, it would vindicate history, it would vindicate those who suffered due to GWB's actions, not only the victims in the Middle East, but your countrymen, those who lost a father, a brother, a son, a friend, a sister.

And those that were against this goddamned bloodshed in the first place.

Angry snip

And that makes you better than Bush how?

I liked Spain after their King told Chavez to shut up, and then they had to go and ruin it. Pity.

And those that were against this goddamned bloodshed in the first place.

Granted. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

In response to Galloism's post:

Heiko-kun, eu entendo sua raiva. Mas, exteriorizando-o demasiado inflexível em um fórum que é povoada por tantos norte-americanos não é uma boa idéia. Tome-a de mim. Eu sei e pode dizer respeito a sua raiva, no entanto.