NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear there are many who still admire this fellow; may I ask why?

Franco, admired?! Whow the fuck admires that demon?

Since you haven't specified which Franco, i am going to say that I admire Franco (Harris) because he was a great running back for my favorite sports team, back in the 70s! :)

Since you haven't specified which Franoc, i am going to say that I admire Franco (Harris) because he was a great running back for my favorite sports team, back in the 70s! :)

No no no, I couldn't stand that guy!! Of course, thats because he rolled up my team like so much tissue and beat em into the ground....

Franco, admired?! Whow the fuck admires that demon?

The Atlantian Islands, I believe. It is amazing what a pro-America stance does to improve the reputation of a muderous tyrant.

Since you haven't specified which Franco, i am going to say that I admire Franco (Harris) because he was a great running back for my favorite sports team, back in the 70s! :)

Francisco.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfranco.htm Just so you do not confuse him with your cousin.

The Atlantian Islands, I believe. It is amazing what a pro-America stance does to improve the reputation of a muderous tyrant.

Oh please, TAI defends Pinochet. What more can you ask? But no, aside from that misguided notion of his, Franco isn't admired. If anything, as the years go by, he's far more despised than right after he left office in 1975.

The Atlantian Islands, I believe. It is amazing what a pro-America stance does to improve the reputation of a muderous tyrant.

Got some sauce for that burger?

Oh please, TAI defends Pinochet. What more can you ask? But no, aside from that misguided notion of his, Franco isn't admired. If anything, as the years go by, he's far more despised than right after he left office in 1975.

My father admires him, and I believe most Republicans over 40 do.

My father admires him, and I believe most Republicans over 40 do.

He's a republican? My condolences. And if he admires Francisco Franco, then your father, with all due respect, has no clue as to what kind of a monster that man was.

I knew who you were talking about Parkus. I was just being silly. ;)

Anyways, the only thing to admire about Franco is that he died. Anyone who believers otherwise would be an idiot and completely out of touch with reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Franco This Franco?

Tom Lehrer, "Folk Song Army"

Remember the war against Franco, that's the one where each of us belongs.
He may have won all the battles, but we had all the good songs!

I hate the fascist bastard. He had the support of Mussolini and Hitler, and no one I know of approves of any of his actions or policies. I'd piss on his grave if I were on the right continent.

I hear there are many who still admire this fellow; may I ask why?

My Grandmother was brought up under his regime, as was a close friend of the family. Both women adored the man as a saviour of Spain from a "corrupt" and "irreligous" republic. However, I know for a fact that my Grandmother had witnessed terrible acts committed by the Gaurdia Civil, hence her lifelong fear of the police.

Personaly I despise the man and my heroes are the brave men and women of the International Brigades. My favourite book is Homage to Catalonia. My Grandmother would be turning in her grave!

Because he cracked down on the Basques, because people saw him as a strong leader, because he was extremely nationalistic.

Because he cracked down on the Basques, because people saw him as a strong leader, because he was extremely nationalistic.

He was a monster, a murderer, a bigot, a believer in a lot of BS. Yeah... I can see how a man like that could be admired.:rolleyes:

I hear there are many who still admire this fellow; may I ask why?

I assume you're looking for a more sophisticated answer than "Because they're morons.".

Because he is supposedly a right wing hero, that is why. Extreme right wing.

The people that admire extreme right leaders admire Franco. If you are otherwise a moderate or left wing, you despise him, it is that simple, really.

As with most historical figures, when someone finds something they like about the guy, they tend to forget all the crap he did.

He was a monster, a murderer, a bigot, a believer in a lot of BS. Yeah... I can see how a man like that could be admired.:rolleyes:

Actually, that generally does it. You answered my question better than anyone else so far, Nanatsu no Tsuki

Because he is supposedly a right wing hero, that is why. Extreme right wing.

The people that admire extreme right leaders admire Franco. If you are otherwise a moderate or left wing, you despise him, it is that simple, really.

As with most historical figures, when someone finds something they like about the guy, they tend to forget all the crap he did.

I found plenty of things I like about Richelieu, but I can still see his greatly unpleasant aspects.

I found plenty of things I like about Richelieu, but I can still see his greatly unpleasant aspects.

As in 3 Musketeers Cardinal Richelieu?

A friend of mine, who is a Spaniard, told me that in Spain it's sort of a 50/50 situation...half of the population has a generally positive opinion on Franco and the other half despises him.
I have never been to spain though, so I don't know if that's indeed the case.

I hear there are many who still admire this fellow; may I ask why? Because he's still dead.

As in 3 Musketeers Cardinal Richelieu?

Yes.

Because he's still dead.

Win.

People admire Franco? I did not know that. I hear that a lot of Russians still admire Stalin. I figured that was just because their brains were pickled by too much vodka.

I am sure that he did a lot of good in that he opposed subversives.

However, you can oppose subversive elements without violating human rights through torturing, and imprisoning political prisoners. Am I right? *looking for a high five*

I do not really know a whole lot about the Generalissimo. I just grew up hearing that he was a tyrant.

Generalissimo is a cool title.

Because he is supposedly a right wing hero, that is why. Extreme right wing.

The people that admire extreme right leaders admire Franco.

I have yet to meet a US Republican who supports Franco. Even the most rabid Bushites haven't expressed a favorable opinion of him.

Generalissimo is a cool title.

Nothing is stopping you from claiming the title. Imagine - Generalissimo Glorious Freedonia of NSG - has a bit of a ring to it, no?

Win.It was a common line on Saturday Night Live in its early years: "... in other news, Francisco Franco is still dead!" Always got applause.

Not only was he a murderous dictator but his Rock me Amadeus was a terrible record.

Franco saved Spain from WWII and socialism. And supporting Stalin in Russia is the government policy. New school history book: "Stalin was a gifted manager"... what a ****...

I find his honorary title very amusing: "caudillo".
Supposed to mean "leader" in Spanish.
But the first part seems to be the Latin word "cauda" = "tail".
Combine that with the Spanish diminutive "-illo", and it looks very much like they were saying he had a tiny thingy. :tongue:

Franco, admired?! Whow the fuck admires that demon?

A very tiny and numerically inconsequential minority of Spaniards still admires him.

See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4357373.stm) and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/18/spain.paulhamilos).

Although I hate the man, I find the Spanish government's reaction to him a bit... Extreme. Understandable, but from the perspective of someone living in the states... *shrugs*

Point still stands that he was a butcher, a murderer, a heartless killer who should've died years earlier, saving Spain the years they had to deal with him.

A very tiny and numerically inconsequential minority of Spaniards still admires him.

See here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4357373.stm) and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/18/spain.paulhamilos).

It does seem the Spanish government has gone a bit far banning all public mention of him.

It does seem the Spanish government has gone a bit far banning all public mention of him.

I agree. No one should be deprived of the right to freedom of speech, even fascists.

It was a common line on Saturday Night Live in its early years: "... in other news, Francisco Franco is still dead!" Always got applause.

I know.

I agree. No one should be deprived of the right to freedom of speech, even fascists.

Well the solution is to invade Spain and set up a dictatorship friendly to the US to protect those Spaniard's rights.

I know.Did you get SNL in Brazil?

Did you get SNL in Brazil?

I don't think H2 was alive at the time. :p

Did you get SNL in Brazil?

Nope, though we do get it on cable now. :p

I am, however, well-versed in American culture.

Nope, though we do get it on cable now. :p

I am, however, well-versed in American culture.

You also speak English better than most Americans do. ;)

I do not really know a whole lot about the Generalissimo. I just grew up hearing that he was a tyrant.

You heard right, Francisco Franco was a tyrant.

New school history book: "Stalin was a gifted manager"... what a ****...

Oh really? What history book says that?

Anyway, Id suspect Franco is admired for the same reason some admire Hitler.

You also speak English better than most Americans do. ;)

Meh, that's largely because of the South and children. :p

Anyway, Id suspect Franco is admired for the same reason some admire Hitler.

For sporting a fantastic moustache?

(Sorry, couldn't resist. :p)

Oh really? What history book says that?

I read in a Time Magazine article that one used in Russian schools says just that.

Anyway, Id suspect Franco is admired for the same reason some admire Hitler.

But many of those who despise Hitler love Franco.

Oh really? What history book says that?

Anyway, Id suspect Franco is admired for the same reason some admire Hitler.
Slightly different kettle of fish to Hitler, though. Yeah, his government was xenophobic and brutal, but eh... wasn't in NSDAP territory.

Slightly different kettle of fish to Hitler, though. Yeah, his government was xenophobic and brutal, but eh... wasn't in NSDAP territory.

I guess the point I was trying to make is some people just love fascists.

I guess the point I was trying to make is some people just love fascists.

Unfortunately.

I guess the point I was trying to make is some people just love fascists.
Aye, which is a bit pish. Which form of fascism is Fascism, after all? There's a lot more to like about Mussolini than Nick Griffin or Hitler, that's for sure.

Aye, which is a bit pish. Which form of fascism is Fascism, after all? There's a lot more to like about Mussolini than Nick Griffin or Hitler, that's for sure.

Mussolini > Griffin? :/
The latter has neither killed anybody nor invaded foreign countries yet...

Nothing is stopping you from claiming the title. Imagine - Generalissimo Glorious Freedonia of NSG - has a bit of a ring to it, no?

Ooooh that would be awesome!

I agree. No one should be deprived of the right to freedom of speech, even fascists.

According to the brief bio I read about him, he was not a fascist, espescially not after WWII. Fascism is pretty vague but the point of the internet commentator was that fascists want great sweeping changes not the preservation of tradition.

The one wierd thing I noticed was that Franco's real and insanely long name did not seem to include the word "Franco".

The one wierd thing I noticed was that Franco's real and insanely long name did not seem to include the word "Franco".

El Generalisimo hijo de puta ese...

I hope he's burning in hell, if there's a hell.

The one wierd thing I noticed was that Franco's real and insanely long name did not seem to include the word "Franco".

Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde, Salgado y Pardo de Andrade

Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde, Salgado y Pardo de Andrade

We Spaniards to have long names. Mine is kilometric.

We Spaniards to have long names. Mine is kilometric.

Di-me! :D

Oh really? What history book says that?

Anyway, Id suspect Franco is admired for the same reason some admire Hitler.

I always admired Franco for being able to tell Hitler to go F off, and avoid being invaded for it.

Di-me! :D

Mi nombre? En telegrama, tal vez, pero no aqui macho. :D

Mi nombre? En telegrama, tal vez, pero no aqui macho. :D

De acuerdo. :D

De acuerdo. :D

Que se te ha enviao un mensaje, nene.

We Spaniards to have long names. Mine is kilometric.

Are you guys born with names that long or do you start out with three and aquire more as you go along?

Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde, Salgado y Pardo de Andrade

So if I was going to write a letter to Franco (were he still around to receive them) I would write:

Dear Francisco Paulino Hermegildo Teodulo Franco y Bahamonde, (the guy has a comma in his name, really?!?) Salgado y Pardo de Andrade:

Whassup? Keep your dictator hand strong!

Your Pal,

GF

Franco, admired?! Whow the fuck admires that demon?


Sadly yes. When I was in highschool nearly everyone in my school walked around calling themselves Fascists. Noone truly understood what that meant, no matter what I told them they didn't listen to me. This guy I was good friends with was from Spain and he would go on, and on, and on about how great he was, and without exception the other kids ate that shit up.


But as for the people who truly admire him, thats a good question. But I guess, similarly, why do so many people look upon Joseph Stalin or any of the Soviet Premiers as being so great? Or why does everyone not jump up and down and worship the ground Ron Paul walks on? People are just dumb dude. :(

Are you guys born with names that long or do you start out with three and aquire more as you go along?

It's a culture thing. I was born with all the names, yes.

Sadly yes. When I was in highschool nearly everyone in my school walked around calling themselves Fascists. Noone truly understood what that meant, no matter what I told them they didn't listen to me. This guy I was good friends with was from Spain and he would go on, and on, and on about how great he was, and without exception the other kids ate that shit up.

Unfortunately there are still people of the old guard who consider themselves Franquistas, and sadly do admire Franco. But I can tell you this, those who suffered under his regime do not admire his memory.


But as for the people who truly admire him, thats a good question. But I guess, similarly, why do so many people look upon Joseph Stalin or any of the Soviet Premiers as being so great? Or why does everyone not jump up and down and worship the ground Ron Paul walks on? People are just dumb dude. :(

Yes, people are dumb indeed.

I hear there are many who still admire this fellow; may I ask why?

James Franco is a fine actor. That's cause enough.


...oh, you meant THAT Franco. Yeah, he was a prick.

Unfortunately there are still people of the old guard who consider themselves Franquistas, and sadly do admire Franco. But I can tell you this, those who suffered under his regime do not admire his memory.




Yes, people are dumb indeed.


Sí, pero no todos pueden ser Nanatsu no Tsuki, eh?

Sí, pero no todos pueden ser Nanatsu no Tsuki, eh?

No, así es, no todos pueden ser Nanatsu no Tsuki. Pero sí todos nos podemos unir a un mismo sentimiento.;)

No, así es, no todos pueden ser Nanatsu no Tsuki. Pero sí todos nos podemos unir a un mismo sentimiento.;)

Ah no, ahora el sentimiento ha ido a la cabeza. :tongue:

Ah no, ahora el sentimiento ha ido a la cabeza. :tongue:

No me digas?:tongue: Y porqué?

Francoist regime was not fascist. "Nationalists" Side of the Spanish Civil War included Monarchist, Carlists, Falangist, and some Right-Wing Democrats. While Republicans were dominated by Stalin backed Communists, Anarchist, Radical Left-Wing Democrats, and Anticlericals. Neither Side was exclusively democratic or totalitarian. And while Franco was backed by Hitler and Mussolini he was not supporting them beside "Blue Division" to fight against USSR.
On top of all Francoist Spain, despite its aversion to Zionism and "Judeo"-Freemasonry, was not sharing the racist anti-Semitic ideology promoted by the Nazis. Certainly, about 25,000 to 35,000 refugees, mainly Jews, were allowed to transit through Spain to Portugal and beyond. About 5,000 Jews in occupied Europe benefitted from Spanish protection.

Francoist regime was not fascist. "Nationalists" Side of the Spanish Civil War included Monarchist, Carlists, Falangist, and some Right-Wing Democrats. While Republicans were dominated by Stalin backed Communists, Anarchist, Radical Left-Wing Democrats, and Anticlericals. Neither Side was exclusively democratic or totalitarian. And while Franco was backed by Hitler and Mussolini he was not supporting them beside "Blue Division" to fight against USSR.
On top of all Francoist Spain, despite its aversion to Zionism and "Judeo"-Freemasonry, was not sharing the racist anti-Semitic ideology promoted by the Nazis. Certainly, about 25,000 to 35,000 refugees, mainly Jews, were allowed to transit through Spain to Portugal and beyond. About 5,000 Jews in occupied Europe benefitted from Spanish protection.


Saying that the Felange, to which Franco was a member, were not fascist is akin to saying that Stalin was not communist. Sure! No, he didn't create a utopian society to benefit all people. But he was still a twisted totalitarian dictator. You don't have to have racist policies to be one.

Franco, admired?! Whow the fuck admires that demon?

There are idiots, even in Spain. Just like the admirers of Mussolini's and of Hitler's in Italy and Germany.

One thing must be said about Franco, though: he was smart enough not to enter WW2.

Anyway, I would state that I utterly despise of the admirers of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Salazar, Quisling, Antonescu, Pétain, Tiso and Tuka, Pavelic', Horthy and Szàlasi... am I forgetting someone?

Francoist regime was not fascist. ... Certainly, about 25,000 to 35,000 refugees, mainly Jews, were allowed to transit through Spain to Portugal and beyond. About 5,000 Jews in occupied Europe benefitted from Spanish protection.

Fascist =/=> Antisemite.

See the wiki for a definition of "fascism".

Fascist =/=> Antisemite.

See the wiki for a definition of "fascism".


Agreed. Fascism is a funny thing. Its not easily definable because there are so many differing ideologies within it. They do not necessarily have all the same binding characteristics of, say, communism. (Communism and Fascism are, in many cases, most ironically the same thing).

There are idiots, even in Spain. Just like the admirers of Mussolini's and of Hitler's in Italy and Germany.

One thing must be said about Franco, though: he was smart enough not to enter WW2.

Anyway, I would state that I utterly despise of the admirers of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Salazar, Quisling, Antonescu, Pétain, Tiso and Tuka, Pavelic', Horthy and Szàlasi... am I forgetting someone?

Milosevic, Amin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Penochet...

It was "Falange", not "Felange". "Felange" was the spice that came from Arrakis, wasn't it?

It was "Falange", not "Felange". "Felange" was the spice that came from Arrakis, wasn't it?


haha yes it was. Sorry I didn't know the spelling. But really, was it relevent to the conversation to point out a spelling error? You understood what I meant.

Or why does everyone not jump up and down and worship the ground Ron Paul walks on?(
Uh... because he's a twit?

Uh... because he's a twit?


I whole-heartedly beg to differ with you on that one. I find people like Barrack Obama to be twits. Dr. Paul is most certainly more on the genius end of the spectrum.

There are idiots, even in Spain. Just like the admirers of Mussolini's and of Hitler's in Italy and Germany.

One thing must be said about Franco, though: he was smart enough not to enter WW2.

Anyway, I would state that I utterly despise of the admirers of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Salazar, Quisling, Antonescu, Pétain, Tiso and Tuka, Pavelic', Horthy and Szàlasi... am I forgetting someone?

You've pretty much covered an extensive list of dictator crap.:wink:

Milosevic, Amin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Penochet...

Pinochet, Wandy. Oh, add Alberto Fujimori from Peru to that list. I almost forgot the prick.

You've pretty much covered an extensive list of dictator crap.:wink:


Sadly the list could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on...some people simply never learn their lesson...

Pinochet, Wandy. Oh, add Alberto Fujimori from Peru to that list. I almost forgot the prick.


A buddy of mine was in the Peruvian Army during that bastards tenure in power. He isn't a fan.

A buddy of mine was in the Peruvian Army during that bastards tenure in power. He isn't a fan.

The government of Japan doesn't want Peru to prosecute Fujimori because he is a Japanese national.

The government of Japan doesn't want Peru to prosecute Fujimori because he is a Japanese national.

Yeah I know. Such a stupid move...I guess of course you could call me out on hypocrisy for that statement, since I did say I didn't want Bush tried on warcrimes by another nation because he's an American national. Granted I guess also the difference is I want him tried, just not in a European court...whatever.

Because he cracked down on the Basques

Yeeaaaaaaaahhh, about that..."cracking down" on a racial group is actually called genocide.

As for this "banning all public mention" stuff, that's an almost comical misinterpretation of the article.

Last week it was confirmed that Spain would ban all public references to the Franco regime, with all statues, street names and symbols associated with the dictator to be removed.

All they did was take down Franco statues and wipe out any state symbology (street names, etc.) that could be interpreted as pro-Franco. The same thing that we did with Saddam Hussein stuff in Iraq, BTW, without any controversy.

I'm on the far left, as anyone who RPs with me knows, but I think I'd be OK with a Cuban democracy doing the same thing with public references to Castro.

On top of all Francoist Spain, despite its aversion to Zionism and "Judeo"-Freemasonry, was not sharing the racist anti-Semitic ideology promoted by the Nazis.

That has nothing to do with fascism, nor has it been alleged. You're attacking a straw man, at best.

"Felange" was the spice that came from Arrakis, wasn't it?

Nope, melange. Which I think is just the French word for "mix".

I whole-heartedly beg to differ with you on that one. I find people like Barrack Obama to be twits. Dr. Paul is most certainly more on the genius end of the spectrum.

Ron Paul is a subject for a whole 'nother thread. Anyway, you can't just pick a politician you happen to like and say that the world must be stupid if it doesn't kiss the ground he walks on. The nature of a democracy is that all politicians are going to be controversial to some extent. It's a good thing that no one politician is universally revered as a god. That would be a tyranny. So it kinda blows my mind that you put down tyrant fans and then pine for a Ron Paul tyranny in the same post.

As for the question in the OP: dictators are almost always charismatic. Franco must have convinced a lot of people that his rule was a good thing, because he was never overthrown, and you know how much the Spanish love overthrowing rulers. If someone were convinced then, it stands to reason that they could still be convinced now; after all, even though most of us agree that the constitutional monarchy is an overwhelmingly good thing, if you were a Francoist you might have felt that it was forced upon you. Maybe you benefited from the Franco regime in some way, and felt like you never had a say in the transition to democracy.

Basically, if Franco didn't have the power to command followers, he wouldn't have been able to keep his power for so long. So some people are gonna dig him. There are probably still Hussein loyalists around. It's easy for us as outsiders to consider these "people" (I say that because they're more monster than human) by their heinous acts and policies, but if you stood to benefit from them in some way, you might not be as objective.

Yeeaaaaaaaahhh, about that..."cracking down" on a racial group is actually called genocide.

As for this "banning all public mention" stuff, that's an almost comical misinterpretation of the article.



All they did was take down Franco statues and wipe out any state symbology (street names, etc.) that could be interpreted as pro-Franco. The same thing that we did with Saddam Hussein stuff in Iraq, BTW, without any controversy.

I'm on the far left, as anyone who RPs with me knows, but I think I'd be OK with a Cuban democracy doing the same thing with public references to Castro.



That has nothing to do with fascism, nor has it been alleged. You're attacking a straw man, at best.



Nope, melange. Which I think is just the French word for "mix".



Ron Paul is a subject for a whole 'nother thread. Anyway, you can't just pick a politician you happen to like and say that the world must be stupid if it doesn't kiss the ground he walks on. The nature of a democracy is that all politicians are going to be controversial to some extent. It's a good thing that no one politician is universally revered as a god. That would be a tyranny. So it kinda blows my mind that you put down tyrant fans and then pine for a Ron Paul tyranny in the same post.

As for the question in the OP: dictators are almost always charismatic. Franco must have convinced a lot of people that his rule was a good thing, because he was never overthrown, and you know how much the Spanish love overthrowing rulers. If someone were convinced then, it stands to reason that they could still be convinced now; after all, even though most of us agree that the constitutional monarchy is an overwhelmingly good thing, if you were a Francoist you might have felt that it was forced upon you. Maybe you benefited from the Franco regime in some way, and felt like you never had a say in the transition to democracy.

Basically, if Franco didn't have the power to command followers, he wouldn't have been able to keep his power for so long. So some people are gonna dig him. There are probably still Hussein loyalists around. It's easy for us as outsiders to consider these "people" (I say that because they're more monster than human) by their heinous acts and policies, but if you stood to benefit from them in some way, you might not be as objective.

I know, I picked Ron Paul as an example of a good politician versus the bad ones, someone else called me out on it, and that was where the response came from. I was going to drop it at that anyway.

El Generalisimo hijo de puta ese...

I hope he's burning in hell, if there's a hell.

He makes Hells.

Yeah I know. Such a stupid move...I guess of course you could call me out on hypocrisy for that statement, since I did say I didn't want Bush tried on warcrimes by another nation because he's an American national. Granted I guess also the difference is I want him tried, just not in a European court...whatever.

I know what you mean. I am not happy at all that Baltasar Garzón is out for Bush's blood. GWB is, once again, a problem of the Americans.

I know, I picked Ron Paul as an example of a good politician versus the bad ones, someone else called me out on it, and that was where the response came from. I was going to drop it at that anyway.

But then you decided to quote a wall of text just to respond to one of my points?

I know what you mean. I am not happy at all that Baltasar Garzón is out for Bush's blood. GWB is, once again, a problem of the Americans.

For the record, I disagree. Bush is no more "a problem of the Americans" than Napoleon was "a problem of the French". When Bush started toppling sovereign nations, and getting most of the EU into the act too, he became the world's problem. Bush's policies have had a wide-ranging effect on the Western world and I am absolutely OK with another country prosecuting him for the effects he had on that country.

I will admit that part of the reason I'm OK with this is that nobody's going to actually do anything to hold Bush accountable for his actions here, despite the growing groundswell of support for stringing him up. Me, I'd hang the guy from the Texas statehouse with piano wire if I could, but I can't.

For the record, I disagree. Bush is no more "a problem of the Americans" than Napoleon was "a problem of the French"..

Do not dare to compare that nitwit to the Emperor! Bonaparte set out to create a society based on merit instead of birth, and Europe declared war on him for it. If you had studied the period at all, you would know Napoléon sent numerous letters asking for peace before he mobilized.

But then you decided to quote a wall of text just to respond to one of my points?



For the record, I disagree. Bush is no more "a problem of the Americans" than Napoleon was "a problem of the French". When Bush started toppling sovereign nations, and getting most of the EU into the act too, he became the world's problem. Bush's policies have had a wide-ranging effect on the Western world and I am absolutely OK with another country prosecuting him for the effects he had on that country.

I will admit that part of the reason I'm OK with this is that nobody's going to actually do anything to hold Bush accountable for his actions here, despite the growing groundswell of support for stringing him up. Me, I'd hang the guy from the Texas statehouse with piano wire if I could, but I can't.

Then you'll have to prosecute the Prime Minister of Britain, Canada, and the leadership of Spain, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Poland, and several other countries as well. They were just as involved in the invasion of Iraq.

Then you'll have to prosecute the Prime Minister of Britain, Canada, and the leadership of Spain, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Poland, and several other countries as well. They were just as involved in the invasion of Iraq.

I believe the question is of torture, not the invasion of Iraq.

For the record, I disagree. Bush is no more "a problem of the Americans" than Napoleon was "a problem of the French". When Bush started toppling sovereign nations, and getting most of the EU into the act too, he became the world's problem. Bush's policies have had a wide-ranging effect on the Western world and I am absolutely OK with another country prosecuting him for the effects he had on that country.

I just honestly believe that if anyone has a right to prosecute him, it's the US. He presided over that country for 8 years. To each his own.

I will admit that part of the reason I'm OK with this is that nobody's going to actually do anything to hold Bush accountable for his actions here, despite the growing groundswell of support for stringing him up. Me, I'd hang the guy from the Texas statehouse with piano wire if I could, but I can't.

Spain had a part, as much as the US did, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, it's, no matter how much I would like to cover the fact, extremely hypocritcal of my government to be asking for GWB's head. For that matter, then we also give the right to the US to call for ex-President Aznar's head. And Aznar IS OUR problem.

I'm on the far left, as anyone who RPs with me knows, but I think I'd be OK with a Cuban democracy doing the same thing with public references to Castro.

At least el Presidente radically improved health care with the money the Soviet Union gave him; that is not something your average dictator would do.

At least el Presidente radically improved health care with the money the Soviet Union gave him; that is not something your average dictator would do.

Yes, and also if one comes to think that Cuba's main problem was imposed by the US: yes, the embargo. Lift that and Cuba can prosper like any other nation.

Yes, and also if one comes to think that Cuba's main problem was imposed by the US: yes, the embargo. Lift that and Cuba can prosper like any other nation.

And I can regularly buy some damned fine cigars.

http://www.absolutecigars.com/images/Cigars/Cohiba-Siglo-II-cuban-cigars_360.jpg

Honestly, why are we still angry at Castro? and Cuba in general?

Honestly, why are we still angry at Castro? and Cuba in general?

Habit.

Really, I'd like to see an end to trade embargoes, favored nation trade status, and all other trade treaty entanglements of all sorts.

Habit.

Really, I'd like to see an end to trade embargoes, favored nation trade status, and all other trade treaty entanglements of all sorts.

*goes to condition green with Lord Tothe*

I believe the question is of torture, not the invasion of Iraq.


Thats all? Torture hasn't been used widely enough to warrant that sort of thing. And the forms of "torture" they use aren't that big a deal. The Invasion of Iraq is a much more pressing issue than usage of torture. Besides, the people who got it DESERVE IT. I don't see what the problem is...these aren't good guys. They're terrorists who blow up civillians in market squares, killing women and children. Cut off their hands for all I care.

At least el Presidente radically improved health care with the money the Soviet Union gave him; that is not something your average dictator would do.


But he's still a communist piece of shit.

Agreed. Fascism is a funny thing. Its not easily definable because there are so many differing ideologies within it. They do not necessarily have all the same binding characteristics of, say, communism. (Communism and Fascism are, in many cases, most ironically the same thing).

Well, not quite so. Agreed, many countries with communist economies have been as authoritarian as fascist regimes. Generally speaking, though, I'd say that communism is a strictly economical definition (the exact opposite to liberism on the economy axis).

On the other hand, I think that the "fascist" label describes a government which is economically centrist-capitalist (that is: capitalism, no mandatory state ownership of mass production, state intervention in favour of large private business, state intervention in favour of the poorest social classes), authoritarian on the libertarian/authoritarian axis (no opposition allowed de facto or de jure), totalitarian (meaning pervasive of all aspects of the citizens' life and of society, Mussolini himself described fascism as such), and nationalistic (national pride, expansionism), but not necessarily downright racist, though the "Manifesto of the Scientists in defence of the Race", signed by many italian fascist intellectuals, claimed that fascism was intrinsecally racist: still Franco's regime, while fascist, wasn't racist to the point Mussolini's or Hitler's were.

Milosevic, Amin, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Penochet...

Pinochet.
Anyway, I was focusing on WW2-era fascist dictators.

Yeeaaaaaaaahhh, about that..."cracking down" on a racial group is actually called genocide.

Banning a language = genocide?

Anyway, I would state that I utterly despise of the admirers of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Salazar, Quisling, Antonescu, Pétain, Tiso and Tuka, Pavelic', Horthy and Szàlasi... am I forgetting someone?

Pinochet, Galtieri, Mugabe, Stalin, Mosley, Mao.

And I can regularly buy some damned fine cigars.

http://www.absolutecigars.com/images/Cigars/Cohiba-Siglo-II-cuban-cigars_360.jpg

Honestly, why are we still angry at Castro? and Cuba in general?

I can speculate. Castro pissed in the face of the US and kicked the great American interests out of his country. *shrugs* He had all the right in the world so...

Well, not quite so. Agreed, many countries with communist economies have been as authoritarian as fascist regimes. Generally speaking, though, I'd say that communism is a strictly economical definition (the exact opposite to liberism on the economy axis).

On the other hand, I think that the "fascist" label describes a government which is economically centrist-capitalist (that is: capitalism, no mandatory state ownership of mass production, state intervention in favour of large private business, state intervention in favour of the poorest social classes), authoritarian on the libertarian/authoritarian axis (no opposition allowed de facto or de jure), totalitarian (meaning pervasive of all aspects of the citizens' life and of society, Mussolini himself described fascism as such), and nationalistic (national pride, expansionism), but not necessarily downright racist, though the "Manifesto of the Scientists in defence of the Race", signed by many italian fascist intellectuals, claimed that fascism was intrinsecally racist: still Franco's regime, while fascist, wasn't racist to the point Mussolini's or Hitler's were.



Its interesting that you bring up the fact that Fascist regimes often allow private enterprise. See, many times the SMART dictators encourage free enterprise, because an economically free nation is generally less likely to give a shit about being politically oppressed. But the dumb ones are so focused on reigning absolute control on all aspects of the country, that they more or less strictly regulate and in many cases take absolute control of the industry. They aren't necessarily communists, though don't meet the literal definition of fascism. I guess the psychology of the tyrant has a lot to do with things too...Thats why I study nationalist movements and fascist governments a lot...I hate them, but they're truly fascinating.

Banning a language = genocide?

He banned Euskera and threatened anyone if they dared speak not only in Euskera but also in any of the other dialects. He almost drove the nationalities and their languages to extinction. That to me is akin to genocide because I grew up fighting for the right to speak and be taught Asturian.

He banned Euskera and threatened anyone if they dared speak not only in Euskera but also in any of the other dialects. He almost drove the nationalities and their languages to extinction. That to me is akin to genocide because I grew up fighting for the right to speak and be taught Asturian.

I wouldn't call it genocide though. Forcing everyone to speak Castillian =/= Genocide.

I wouldn't call it genocide though. Forcing everyone to speak Castillian =/= Castillian.

It was unfair to the country. He banned the dialects, he tried to make the country, so rich in its distinctions, an homogeneous mélange. It was crippling. And because of him, there are, at least, 2 generations of Spaniards that missed out on their province heritage and parts of Spain still fighting to give officiality to their dialect.

It was unfair to the country. He banned the dialects, he tried to make the country, so rich in its distinctions, an homogeneous mélange. It was crippling. And because of him, there are, at least, 2 generations of Spaniards that missed out on their province heritage and parts of Spain still fighting to give officiality to their dialect.

It was unfair, I'm not saying it wasn't, but it wasn't genocide.

It was unfair, I'm not saying it wasn't, but it wasn't genocide.

It was cultural genocide, Adunabar. It still is.

Probably the same reason that people think Mao, Stalin or Pinochet were good guys. It's not scene to think Hitler was a good guy, but Stalin and Mao are still in the okay camp in China and Russia. Apparently substantial economic progress bails out people that commit crimes against humanity and who destroy cultures in the name of homogenization. Sure, the same results probably could have been achieved in a peaceful, democratic system but it's far better to build gigantic industrial plants in Siberia, I guess.

Of course, Franco was kind of a dumbass to boot. Seriously, feeding people with dolphin? Herbs that turn rivers in to oil? Not even Kim Jong Il falls for that bullshit.

It was cultural genocide, Adunabar. It still is.

Wouldn't that just be called culturecide (sp?) then?

Wouldn't that just be called culturecide (sp?) then?

You have a poetic license, Adu-kun?:tongue:

Apparently substantial economic progress bails out people that commit crimes against humanity and who destroy cultures in the name of homogenization.

A quick look at the CIA/Pinochet thread confirms this.

You have a poetic license, Adu-kun?:tongue:

Do I?

Do I?

I wonder, was that even a word? Seriously now.:confused:

I wonder, was that even a word? Seriously now.:confused:

No it wasn't.

No it wasn't.

Ah, thanks for the clarification then.

I can speculate. Castro pissed in the face of the US and kicked the great American interests out of his country. *shrugs* He had all the right in the world so...

He kicked-out American interests, but when he first came to power he made it clear he did not want to be our enemy. He said "Cuba before communism", telling us that he was more concerned about bettering his country than helping the Soviets. American attempts to assassinate ruined any good relations we might have built.

http://www.killcastro.com/BLOG/uploaded_images/Fidel-Nixon-754256.jpg

This picture was taken when Nixon was VP, some years before the Bay of Pigs.

Pinochet, Wandy. Oh, add Alberto Fujimori from Peru to that list. I almost forgot the prick.

Fujimori was a douchebag.

Pinochet.
Anyway, I was focusing on WW2-era fascist dictators.

Tojo?

He kicked-out American interests, but when he first came to power he made it clear he did not want to be our enemy. He said "Cuba before communism", telling us that he was more concerned about bettering his country than helping the Soviets.

False.

Read The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith. He was the U.S. ambassador at the end of the Batista regime. Also read Red Star Over Cuba by Nathaniel Weyl, which extensively details Castro's past.

False.

Read The Fourth Floor by Earl E.T. Smith. He was the U.S. ambassador at the end of the Batista regime. Also read Red Star Over Cuba by Nathaniel Weyl, which extensively details Castro's past.

Alright. Any of the information concerning Castro I have spoken came either from The Economist or Nixon's personal memoirs.

Alright. Any the information I have spoken about on Castro came either from The Economist or Nixon's personal memoirs.

Castro did meet with U.S. officials early on, it's true. But he was a communist since at least 1948, and before coming to power he had spoken out very strongly against the U.S.

But to avoid highjacking further, we can discuss this further over TGs if you're interested.

Castro did meet with U.S. officials early on, it's true. But he was a communist since at least 1948, and before coming to power he had spoken out very strongly against the U.S.

But to avoid highjacking further, we can discuss this further over TGs if you're interested.

Done!

Fujimori was a douchebag.

He was. But even so, Japan won't let a prosecution happen.

He was. But even so, Japan won't let a prosecution happen.

I thought he was in Chile or Peru now?

He deserves to be prosecuted, especially for what he did to all those indigenous women.

It was "Falange", not "Felange". "Felange" was the spice that came from Arrakis, wasn't it?

haha yes it was. Sorry I didn't know the spelling. But really, was it relevent to the conversation to point out a spelling error? You understood what I meant.

Wait, I thought it was 'Melange'? :confused:

I thought he was in Chile or Peru now?

He deserves to be prosecuted, especially for what he did to all those indigenous women.

He's in Peru, I think. But when the idea was brought upon a Peruvian Grand Jury to prosecute him, the Japanese government prohibited citing Fujimori is, after all, a Japanese national and if someone was going to have a say on the matter, Japan reserved the right to make this decision. Utterly stupid, Fujimori, after all, was the president of Peru, not the president of Japan. But international politics and extradition treaties are that fucked up.

He's in Peru, I think. But when the idea was brought upon a Peruvian Grand Jury to prosecute him, the Japanese government prohibited citing Fujimori is, after all, a Japanese national and if someone was going to have a say on the matter, Japan reserved the right to make this decision. Utterly stupid, Fujimori, after all, was the president of Peru, not the president of Japan. But international politics and extradition treaties are that fucked up.

That's a damn shame. :(

That's a damn shame. :(

Tell me about it.

The one wierd thing I noticed was that Franco's real and insanely long name did not seem to include the word "Franco".

Francisco Paulino Hermenegildo Teódulo Franco y Bahamonde, Salgado y Pardo de Andrade

At least el Presidente radically improved health care with the money the Soviet Union gave him; that is not something your average dictator would do.

Yes, and also if one comes to think that Cuba's main problem was imposed by the US: yes, the embargo. Lift that and Cuba can prosper like any other nation.

And I can regularly buy some damned fine cigars.

http://www.absolutecigars.com/images/Cigars/Cohiba-Siglo-II-cuban-cigars_360.jpg

Honestly, why are we still angry at Castro? and Cuba in general?

Habit.

Really, I'd like to see an end to trade embargoes, favored nation trade status, and all other trade treaty entanglements of all sorts.

I hate to break up the pro-Castro wank fest, but let me show exaxtly why Castro's regime is bad, ok . (I swear, only on NSG :rolleyes: )

Let's talk about human rights:

The Cuban government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials, and extrajudicial executions (a.k.a. "El Paredón").[91]

Cuba is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its constitution has a section outlining the "fundamental rights, duties and guarantees" of the Cuban people.[1] However, possessing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a punishable and the regime destroys copies of it.[2]

Dissidents complain of harassment and torture.[5] Educational and cultural policy is based on Marxist ideology by law,[6] and The Code for Children, Youth and Family states that a parent who teaches ideas contrary to communism can be sentenced to three years in prison.[6] Freedom of assembly is severely restricted in Cuba. No independent labor unions are allowed.[3] Government maintains tight control of religion.[3] There is no due process; the judicial system is constitutionally subordinate to the government.[3] Citizens cannot leave or return to Cuba without first obtaining official permission, which is often denied.[7][8] Even discussing escaping carries a six-month prison sentence.[8] Those with permission to leave for authorized reason are required to leave children in Cuba, who are kept as hostages to prevent people fleeing.[7][8]

"The government also imprisons or orders the surveillance of individuals who have committed no illegal act, relying upon provisions that penalize “dangerousness” (estado peligroso) and allow for “official warning” (advertencia oficial)."[6]

The Cuban constitution says that free speech is allowed "in keeping with the objectives of socialist society" and that artistic creation is allowed "as long as its content is not contrary to the Revolution".

- in other words, "you're allowed to write and say whatever you wish, as long as it's in line with the socialist party agenda." -

Cuba's ranking was on the bottom of the Press Freedom Index 2008 compiled by the Reporters Without Borders (RWB).[9] RWB states that Cuba is "the second biggest prison in the world for journalists" after the People's Republic of China.[37] Cuba was named one of the ten most censored countries in the world by the Committee to Protect Journalists.[38]

Books, newspapers, radio channels, television channels, movies and music are censored.

Human rights group Amnesty International assert that the universal state ownership of the media means that freedom of expression is restricted. Thus the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is restricted by the lack of means of mass communication falling outside state control.[40] Human Rights Watch states: "Refusing to recognize human rights monitoring as a legitimate activity, the government denies legal status to local human rights groups.


Here's a good example:

In 1960, Armando Valladares was working at the Cuban Postal Savings Bank when agents of the Ministry of Communications handed him a card bearing a communist slogan and told him to put it on his worktable. The 23-year-old Valladares refused. Astonished, the agents asked him if he had anything against Castro. Valladares answered that if Castro was a communist, he did. Valladares was convicted on a charge of placing bombs in public places and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

According to the Human Rights Watch, Castro constructed a "repressive machinery" which continues to deprive Cubans of their basic rights.[165]

Castro created a significant system of censorship; Cuba had the fourth worst system out of 174 countries on the 2008 Press Freedom Index.[166] The few Cubans with official permissions to access Internet face Internet surveillance; the vast majority of Cubans face five-year prison sentences for connecting to Internet.[167]

The authorities have called Internet "the great disease of 21st century".[99] As a result of computer ownership bans, computer ownership rates are among the world's lowest.[100]

In their book, Corruption in Cuba, Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López Servando state that Castro "institutionalized" corruption and that "Castro's state-run monopolies, cronyism, and lack of accountability have made Cuba one of the world's most corrupt states".[168] Servando Gonzalez, in The Secret Fidel Castro, calls Castro a "corrupt tyrant".[169]

In 1959, according to Gonzalez, Castro established "Fidel's checking account", from which he could draw funds as he pleased.[169] The "Comandante's reserves" were created in 1970, from which Castro allegedly "provided gifts to many of his cronies, both home and abroad".[169] Gonzalez asserts that Comandante's reserves have been linked to counterfeiting business empires and money laundering.[169]
As early as 1968, a once-close friend of Castro's wrote that Castro had huge accounts in Swiss banks.[169] Castro's secretary was allegedly seen using Zurich banks.[169] Gonzalez believes that Cuba's paucity of trade with Switzerland contrasts oddly with the National Office of Cuba's relatively large office in Zurich.[169] Castro has denied having a bank account abroad with even a dollar in it.[170]

. . . I have no problem with Swiss bank accounts, but it looks ridiculous for a communist revolutionary preaching state-sponsored equality to have one . . .

A KGB officer, Alexei Novikov, stated that Castro's personal life, like the lives of the rest of the Communist elite, is "shrouded under an impenetrable veil of secrecy". Among other things, he asserted that Castro has a personal guard of more than 9700 men and three luxurious yachts.[169]

Shall I go on? I love when Cuba apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

Who is defending Castro?

TAI, I hate Castro's guts, but I still think the U.S. should have diplomatic relations with Cuba and trade with Cuba.

Btw, TPE started a Castro thread. We can re-locate there to discuss this further. ;)

I hate to break up the pro-Castro wank fest, but let me show exaxtly why Castro's regime is bad, ok . (I swear, only on NSG :rolleyes: )

Let's talk about human rights:











- in other words, "you're allowed to write and say whatever you wish, as long as it's in line with the socialist party agenda." -






Here's a good example:










As early as 1968, a once-close friend of Castro's wrote that Castro had huge accounts in Swiss banks.[169] Castro's secretary was allegedly seen using Zurich banks.[169] Gonzalez believes that Cuba's paucity of trade with Switzerland contrasts oddly with the National Office of Cuba's relatively large office in Zurich.[169] Castro has denied having a bank account abroad with even a dollar in it.[170]

. . . I have no problem with Swiss bank accounts, but it looks ridiculous for a communist revolutionary preaching state-sponsored equality to have one . . .



Shall I go on? I love when Cuba apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.

Apply all this crap to your own self. You're a Pinochet apologist so...rolleyes:

Oh, and have you been to Cuba? Do you have experience of the country first hand? Or this is just your biased conclusions on the subject? Because I have first hand experience of the country, I've been there, and this you quoted is, once again, a load of crap.

I hate to break up the pro-Castro wank fest, but let me show exaxtly why Castro's regime is bad, ok . (I swear, only on NSG :rolleyes: )

Let's talk about human rights:











- in other words, "you're allowed to write and say whatever you wish, as long as it's in line with the socialist party agenda." -






Here's a good example:










As early as 1968, a once-close friend of Castro's wrote that Castro had huge accounts in Swiss banks.[169] Castro's secretary was allegedly seen using Zurich banks.[169] Gonzalez believes that Cuba's paucity of trade with Switzerland contrasts oddly with the National Office of Cuba's relatively large office in Zurich.[169] Castro has denied having a bank account abroad with even a dollar in it.[170]

. . . I have no problem with Swiss bank accounts, but it looks ridiculous for a communist revolutionary preaching state-sponsored equality to have one . . .



Shall I go on? I love when Cuba apologists start preaching their lies, because it's so easy to counter.


Yes, those are all deplorable. But they dont justify a continued (and ineffective) trade embargo when we regularly trade with countries who do far worse. Nor does it counter any of the good he has actually done, like using Soviet money to improve health care. Unlike many Communist leaders, Castro actually tries to stick to some of the principles.

Regardless, there is another thread for this now;)

*snip

I am not pro-Castro, I merely think he is better than other dictators belonging to his breed, and I doubt that our embargo is harming Castro as much as it is the Cuban people.

Now, let us you speak of the dictator this thread is about.

SNIP

Compared to Pinochet he's good as gold, you fucking hypocrite.

Apply all this crap to your own self. You're a Pinochet apologist so...rolleyes:

Oh, and have you been to Cuba? Do you have experience of the country first hand? Or this is just your biased conclusions on the subject? Because I have first hand experience of the country, I've been there, and this you quoted is, once again, a load of crap.

I have been there too, in Cuba, and no, not everything is a load of crap, sorry...

I have posted my replies in the actual Castro thread. Didn't see it before, sorry.

I am not pro-Castro, I merely think he is better than other dictators belonging to his breed, and I doubt that our embargo is harming Castro as much as it is the Cuban people.

Now, let us you speak of the dictator this thread is about.

He'll defend Franco. In the same breath as he attacked Castro. For "human rights violations".

So, yeah.

Compared to Pinochet he's good as gold, you fucking hypocrite.

Flame?

Also, how is Castro "good" compared to Pinochet? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just want your honest opinion. If you'd rather, you can reply in TPE's thread.

Do not dare to compare that nitwit to the Emperor! Bonaparte set out to create a society based on merit instead of birth, and Europe declared war on him for it.

I don't know a thing about Napoleon and I don't care. You've completely missed my point, which had nothing to do with the relative merit of Napoleon vs. Bush. Try again.

Then you'll have to prosecute the Prime Minister of Britain, Canada, and the leadership of Spain, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia, Poland, and several other countries as well. They were just as involved in the invasion of Iraq.

"Just as involved"? Really?

And the issue at hand is the commission of war crimes, not the invasion of Iraq. The point, AIUI, is that a European country might feel put off by Bush having tricked them into joining the debacle. We have no such cause of action against any other Coalition nation; they've done nothing to us except support us when we asked for help.

I just honestly believe that if anyone has a right to prosecute him, it's the US. He presided over that country for 8 years. To each his own.

That's fine, and I totally understand that perspective. I think I would agree with you if I lived in Europe. Since I live in the US, I can see easily that, unfortunately, our culture is such that we won't prosecute him. Our window of opportunity has passed; nobody puts a former President on trial here for things they did while they held that office. Bush becomes less and less hated each day that the Obama administration gets older. Unfortunately, hindsight seems to let American presidents off the hook sooner or later, no matter how controversial, incompetent or just plain evil they were (see: Jackson; Truman; Reagan).

Spain had a part, as much as the US did, in Afghanistan and in Iraq

This, I think, is where we disagree. Once Bush called for the Coalition to come together to defy the UN, each individual nation had the choice to join us or not. Germany and France rather famously declined, and suffered no real ramifications, other than an anti-French cultural movement that everyone forgot about after a year or two. And that was only because American righties were rather inclined to hate the French in the first place.

I'm also not aware of any other Coalition forces committing war crimes in Iraq. If I'm forgetting something, I'll gladly stand corrected.

For that matter, then we also give the right to the US to call for ex-President Aznar's head. And Aznar IS OUR problem.

I'm not so sure that it would. (I do agree that Aznar is your problem, though :D Well, he's the Iraqi's and Afghanis' problem too...) Theoretically, the relationships are comparable, but really, Aznar just joined Bush's posse. We have no cause of action against Aznar or Spain. Y'all did nothing to us. We, on the other hand, led you into a debacle of a war.

At least el Presidente radically improved health care with the money the Soviet Union gave him; that is not something your average dictator would do.

I don't remember claiming that every single thing Castro did was unilaterally bad. In fact, I don't remember claiming that about anyone from Franco to Mussolini either.

Banning a language = genocide?

No, you said "cracked down on the Basques". I was responding to that. I used a little hyperbole. Still, I doubt that language policy was all that Franco did to the Basques, although I will admit being ignorant about that particular detail.

But I happen to think that language bans are a unilaterally terrible thing, amounting to official culture destruction, and not much more defensible than genocide. But then, I'm a linguist.

He was. But even so, Japan won't let a prosecution happen.

I'm curious, because this is an area of international law I'm not strong on: how, exactly, could they stop it?

He was. But even so, Japan won't let a prosecution happen.

you know Fujimori has already been prosecuted and is serving time in jail as we speak. He visited Chile in 2005 and they arrested him, and extradited him to Peru in 2007. If he had stayed in Japan he would not have been touched but going anywhere in Latin America was a dumb move.

Flame?
It is but I'm not gonna report it. I don't really like going to the mods.

There are idiots, even in Spain. Just like the admirers of Mussolini's and of Hitler's in Italy and Germany.

One thing must be said about Franco, though: he was smart enough not to enter WW2.

Anyway, I would state that I utterly despise of the admirers of Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Salazar, Quisling, Antonescu, Pétain, Tiso and Tuka, Pavelic', Horthy and Szàlasi... am I forgetting someone?

You forgot about Josef Pilsudski.


But why do you hate Horthy or Petain?
Petain was appointed by French Parliament, and since entrance of "French State" into war was a mere figurehead (just like Hirohito who got lucky to avoid trial).
And Horthy was resposible for saving Hungary from marxist 1919 revolution (but i guess its bad for you), and until Hitler ousted him, replacing with Szálasi, Jews were safe in Hungary.


"Manifesto of the Scientists in defence of the Race", signed by many italian fascist intellectuals, claimed that fascism was intrinsecally racist: still Franco's regime, while fascist, wasn't racist to the point Mussolini's or Hitler's were.
Maybe because Francoism wasn't fascist?
Although Franco and Spain under his rule adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are not generally considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco and Franco's Spain did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, were conservative and traditional.

You forgot about Josef Pilsudski.


But why do you hate Horthy or Petain?
Petain was appointed by French Parliament, and since entrance of "French State" into war was a mere figurehead (just like Hirohito who got lucky to avoid trial).
And Horthy was resposible for saving Hungary from marxist 1919 revolution (but i guess its bad for you), and until Hitler ousted him, replacing with Szálasi, Jews were safe in Hungary.

What's wrong with Pilsudski? I was under the impression he was a pretty cool guy. Certainly not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Hitler.

Feel free to correct me though as my knowledge doesn't really extend further than Wikipedia.

He brought Spain back to where it needed to go.

Crackdowns on dissenters, no democracy and a failed economy?

Snip.

Never making good use of an opportunity to hold your peace about a subject you know nothing about, eh?

What's wrong with Pilsudski? I was under the impression he was a pretty cool guy. Certainly not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Hitler.

Feel free to correct me though as my knowledge doesn't really extend further than Wikipedia.

He became a dictator later on, after being a war hero in WWI.