http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167747.stm

Opponents have expressed anger that Gen Pinochet died without justice being done over the charges brought against him.

May he rot in hell, but as you could see last night on B3TA, the following is probably more likely.


http://www.b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/jpg/pinochet.jpg
source: http://b3ta.com/board/6623655

I bet Mrs. Thatch is sad.

I agree. Mrs Thatcher is sad, but not in the way you meant.

Americans who insist that the U.S. always knows what it's doing should be required to read the detailed history of the Pinochet regime that are now popping up everywhere. He was only able to achieve and retain power because of our government's support.

General Pinochet was a great hero. A crusher of Communists who Chile a stable and good economy.

I salute him.

i donno much about Pinochet, but i suspect that whatever "human rights violations" he did, he did it to people like Che or Fidel wannabes

and if so, then good for him

it is because of him that Chile has a western-style economy and quality of life

A crusher of Communists who Chile a stable and good economy.


So I take democracy is only good when it leads to our way? Allende happened to be a democraticly elected leader. What if the citizens vote to be communist?

Otheapd,

that is outrageous, how can you you say it was good that Pinochet crushed fidel wannabees, not much of western freeedom that is,, or is it???????

~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

i consider Che & Fidel and the likes as hardcore terrorists
and as such, (again, this is my opinion based on my understanding of things), what Pinochet did was no different than a Tomohawk missile slamming into a car carrying AQ fighters

it's also a fraction of what Che & Company did (and are doing) at present day.

how's torturing people to death and then selling their organs (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39235) by the agents of the People's Revolution sound?

... what Pinochet did was no different than a Tomohawk* missile slamming into a car carrying AQ fighters...In addition to difference in scale of killing, a Tomohawk slamming into that car is not overturning an elected government. It killing people trying to do that.

It is also worth noting, as I have before, that The CIA indirectly killed the elected president of Chile and destroyed Chilean democracy on 9 / 11 (Probably why date was chosen for the US's 9/11.) 1973, for 17 years, but it has returned.

Father of current Chilean president, Michelle Bachelet, was among the 4000 to 5000 killed under Pinochet. (He died under torture.) She herself was relatively young and survived her brief period of torture. Thus, it is not very surprising that there is no state funeral or official period of morning in Chile.

The CIA is probably mourning, or at least regretting that the dictators it has recently used to destroy democratically elected government, such as Mussarrik of Pakistan, are not as tough as Pinochet, who is now in Hell enjoying a very warm welcome as a returning hero.

At least 28,000 were tortured under Pinochet, some with CIA help (drugs mainly, as the electrodes etc. used were locally made.) Some of the approximately 200,000 who managed to get out of Chile were returned by "operation condor" - a mutual project among the dictators of Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

As former US Secretary of State Powell said: “It was not a period the US can be proud of.”
------------------------------------
*BTW, Tomohawks do not do that. You probably mean a Preditor missile. Tomohawks are launched at a fixed point on Earth, although I think some of the latest can be given a new GPS position to hit while in flight.

not to make light of any real torture he did commit, i think looking at the state of the world back in those days might give a bit of context to what he was doing.

i am also skeptical about any allegations about him since accusations of "torture" are usually full of hyperbole... not to say he didn't torture, but just that it shouldn't be believed just because a few 'experts' have said it is so

...i am also skeptical about any allegations about him since accusations of "torture" are usually full of hyperbole... not to say he didn't torture, but just that it shouldn't be believed just because a few 'experts' have said it is soIt is not a "few experts" - there are at least 10,000 still alive who were tortured. Read post 10 if you have not.

Only a few of the mothers of the "disappeared" still survive to assemble and stand silently in the public square on Sundays but more than a hundred did a few years ago.

You need not have doubts about the scale of Pinochets crimes, but also he did probably protect Chile from adopting a communistic economy and that would have also caused many to die as it has almost without exception when it survives for a decade or more.

Syzygys:


So I take democracy is only good when it leads to our way? Allende happened to be a democraticly elected leader. What if the citizens vote to be communist?

I do not believe in Democracy. Moreover, I support any revolution, peaceful or war-like, against every Communist regime. Usurption is the proper way to respond to any Communist government, not matter how supported by the people.

Rot in hell augusto. And thanks for causing Chile to turn to socialism!!

...I support any revolution, peaceful or war-like, against every Communist regime. Usurption is the proper way to respond to any Communist government, not matter how supported by the people.As Christianity has very many of the same economic ideals* as communism, (giving wealth to the poor; very difficult for rich to enter heaven, live without material desires, etc.) do you advocate violence against it and killing it leaders also? If not why not?
-----------------------------------
*communistic ideals are rarely achieved, but in crude summary these IDEALS, especially the economic ones, can be described as "Christianity without God or promise of heaven."

I do not believe in Democracy.

Well, that explains. So what do you prefer? And really, what is the difference between communism and having a king?

Syzygys:

Meritocracy.

The difference between Communism and having a king may be elaborated on, in part, in my thread "A Moral Indictment of Communism". Although I don't explicitly mention monarchy, monarchy does not include the same tenets of Communism which I object to.

The closest-to-the-ideal state ever realized: The Venetian Republic.

Billy T.:

I object to any Christian nation working under Christian principles of life and governance as a mandatory thing for all under them. I would not, however, object to say, the United Kingdom, which is officially Christian (Anglican).

Armchair toughguys here that think rightwing military dictatorships are better than leftwing dictatorships or elected socialist governments are usually the ones that whine endlessly about how brutal and cruel Hussein was, or Noriega was or Ben Bella was.
These so called American Freedom lovers mimic the tactics of all these governments. Pinochet was a CIA backed rightwing dictator, supplied with death squads that were unleashed on those suspected of opposing his junta. Americans along with tens of thousands of Chileans were disappeared, tortured, raped and killed. Ever seen the 1980 something movie Missing with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek?
SF Pinochet lovers are no different than Hussein supporters or the most brutal leftist leaders they so despise. It doesn't mean you are tough, it means you share many characteristics with those you claim to hate.
It's all about fear. Not surprisingly the majority of these cheerleaders for bloodthirsty military dictatorships are Christian and Republican.

Syzygys:
Meritocracy.

Well, in theory it sounds good. But I am a practical man. Since Wikipedia only mentions 2 city states and 1 country as meritocrat through history, that tells me that the system isn't so viable or there must be naturally more effective/preferable form.

Also, who is to stay that smart people can not screw up? Also social natural selection aka social darwinism prefers monarchy/dictatorship...

Syzygys:

You will note that all businesses and militaries (or at least the effective militaries) throughout history have been meritocratic by nature. No business does not take its greatest and puts them in positions of power, and no military does not promote its best soldiers.

Smart, strong, and great people can indeed screw up - just nto as often or as terribly, on average, as inferiors. But yes, monarchy/dictatorships are common throughout history and do have some degree of social darwinism, but also have a problem with sustaining themselves and keeping their level of effectiveness.

So I take democracy is only good when it leads to our way? Allende happened to be a democraticly elected leader. What if the citizens vote to be communist?

PJ's a self proclaimed fascist.


[edit]
My bad, a nationalist.

Also, who is to stay that smart people can not screw up? Also social natural selection aka social darwinism prefers monarchy/dictatorship...

How?
Isn't merit what makes for good leaders, not who their daddy is?

What happens to the elderly in a merit-dictatorship? Those with birth defects? Handicaps? A small physical build? Merit-dictatorship is simply cro-Magnon Man. The cave dweller society. The strong men live longest and hunt, then die, along with their mates and children. Bizarre ideology, based on the disregard for fellow human beings.

Genji:

The elderly are often the smartest in society. Almost all geniuses have done their best work in their 60's and 70's. Elderly people can contribute wonderfully to society, but those who do not deserve it (I.E. the infirm) would not be in political power.

No meritocracy requires a system where it is encouraged to kill off inferior people. Simply these inferior people will have no political participation whatsoever. This is not to say that someone who is weak but smart would not, or someone who is strong but stupid would not, simply their talents would be where they are part of things, not their defects.

To give a school analogy: The strong but stupid kid would become the gym teacher, the smart but weak kid would become the biology professor.

Genji:

The elderly are often the smartest in society. Almost all geniuses have done their best work in their 60's and 70's. Elderly people can contribute wonderfully to society, but those who do not deserve it (I.E. the infirm) would not be in political power.

No meritocracy requires a system where it is encouraged to kill off inferior people. Simply these inferior people will have no political participation whatsoever. This is not to say that someone who is weak but smart would not, or someone who is strong but stupid would not, simply their talents would be where they are part of things, not their defects.

To give a school analogy: The strong but stupid kid would become the gym teacher, the smart but weak kid would become the biology professor.It sounds like something a ruling class would want in place. Who would enforce the 'fairness' you mention? This system would be even more prone to corruption than capitalism is.

It worked for a thousand years in Venice.

Moreover, capitalism is, in and of itself, an uncorrupt system. The market decides all. It is only when governments interfere - for or against businesses - that corruption becomes a problem.

...It is only when governments interfere - for or against businesses - that corruption becomes a problem.Congratuations:
You win most idiotic post of the year award.

You are saying: Government should not have interfered with ENRON. Germany is not reducing corruption today by investigating SEMENS for millions in bribes and kick-backs, etc. SEC should allow back dating of stock options. FDA should allow ineffective and dangerous drugs to be sold, as the make more profit, if never actually tested before being sold but instead test results are simply faked and never existed, Ok to bribe fire-law inspectors, etc., etc. & etc. :rolleyes:

In post 10 & 12 I gave some facts about the Pinochet era, acknowledged he did prevent Chile from becoming a communistic economy (Thus far, none have served their populations well.) while destroying elected governmental democracy for 17 years.
I mentioned the 4000 tortured to death (including the father of the current President, who was general in the air force who thought the role of military was not to over turn the government, but to serve and protect it. - Silly man, :rolleyes: the CIA would have made him rich.).

I mentioned that current President and her mother were tortured, along with 28,000 others. That 200,000 thousand escaped from Chile, but that some were returned by the "Operation Condor" agreements with the military dictators then in Brazil and Argentina.

All these huge numbers are difficult to comprehend. Today sports page made it more human and explained the following table:

Chile's Olymic Game metals (in equal time periods):
Pre Pinochet: 7
Pinochet Era: 1
Post Pinochet: 4

Chile's Pan-American Games metals (in equal time periods):
Pre Pinochet: 102
Pinochet Era: 33
Post Pinochet: 63

Chile's heavy weight boxing Champ, Wagner Salinas, was a militant leader in the socialist movement, who openly supported elected President Allenda, but a few day after the coup, he was never seen again.

Chile's cycling champ, Sergio Tormen, was active in Movimento Esquerda Revolucionaria, (movement socialist left), was placed in prison by DINA (the "political police") and tortured to death. His brother, Peter Tormen, also a cyclist and National winner in 1987, although not active politically, foolishly before live TV cameras after his victory dedicated his metal to his "murdered brother" - Guess what happen to him a few days later - you must guess as no one knows where his body is. - he just disappeared. Probably among the 1000s who were drugged and dropped live from CIA supplied helicopters far out at sea.

I am not a sport fan. Rarely even look at sports pages but noticed the large photo of soldier at sports stadium, in today's paper* and read the above. Some how, these three made the terror of Pinochet era more real than 4000 tortured to death, 28,000 tortured, 200,000 driven into exile.

The main point of the torture was to learn the names of others who should be eliminated. Many non-left leaning were tortured also. Of course, many names given under torture were not even active politically and usually released after a few days of torture. One exception was women in advanced states of pregnancy. They were keep until the child was born and old enough to be bottle feed. Then mother was usually killed and baby given to a childless right wing couple to raise as their own. Nearly 100 Chileans now know they are not biologically related to their “parents.”

----------------------------
*Folha de Sao Paulo,13 Dec 06, p D3.

PS the 28,000 tortured is from the military records, which were quite good as they did not want to waste time torturing a non-leftist a second time. During the first months they did not keep such good records. so total is probably 30,000.

Billy T:

Those are criminal matters. I meant more along the lines of anti and pro-labour union laws, minimum wage laws, wage caps, et cetera, et cetera. You will note, however, that much of the bribes companies make are made to the government, which owing to the power given to it to interrupt business, makes bribes possible.

Billy T:

Those are criminal matters. I meant more along the lines of anti and pro-labour union laws, minimum wage laws, wage caps, et cetera, et cetera. ...Are you now stating/ implying that the "cooruption" you referred to in your statement:

"...only when governments interfere - for or against businesses - that corruption becomes a problem."

is the laws government makes? I.e. That if government would just not make laws, there would be no corruption? I can agree that without any laws there would be no crime, but I would still recognize corruption when it occurs. (Would be even easier, much easier, as without laws no one would try as hard to hide their corrupt activities.)

Please try to restate your idiotic statement quoted above to make it more clear what you do mean, if you can. Perhaps you can get into the "Moronic statement prize of the year" contest instead being the winner of the "Idiotic statement prize for 2006."

Billy T.:

You mistakenly put a physics answer in here above you rreply to me.


is the laws government makes? I.e. That if government would just not make laws, there would be no corruption? I can agree that without any laws there would be no crime, but I would still recognize corruption when it occurs. (Would be even easier, much easier, as without laws no one would try as hard to hide their corrupt activities.)

To quantify:

I do not mean there would be no crimes, I mean that the interference produces the corruption. Once government is given power to interfere with business matters, which are not themselves a matter of crime (fraud and blackmail are crimes regardless of business) one opens the gates to the bribery and such. Consider also that laws against labour unions (or mandating or making them government institutions) also open the floodgates for corruption, as a new sphere of government power is expanded. When one has simply the businesses, one has crime, with no greater propensity.

That is to say, capitalism in and of itself, has no greater propensity for crime than any other system institutable.

....Once government is given power to interfere with business matters, ... one opens the gates to the bribery and such...This makes no sense. I will soon send it to the "moronic statement of the year" judges.

If you can state how this version of your statement applies to the current Grerman investigation and "interference" with the way SIEMENS has been gaining contracts in South America and Africa, please do so. If your statement makes any sense, I will not submit for that committee's consideration. (I understand they already have a lot of candidates and are busy - this unlike the committee that gave you the first "Idiotic statement" prize. - A friend there told me you made their selection simple this year with your entry far superior to all others.)

Please illustrate your point with SIEMEMS case where German government is interfering with business, and thus causing, according to you, corruption.

Billy T.:

How can you bribe a politician when the government is prohibited from interfering, positively or negatively, in business matters?

Billy T.: How can you bribe a politician when the government is prohibited from interfering, positively or negatively, in business matters?I asked you first to use Sieman case to illustrate but your reply is this question. None the less I will answer first and trust you to actually reply next post.

Most of the African cases where SIEMENS has paid kick-backs and bribes (and surely in the Brazilian case related to equipment for the control of air space over the Amazon) the government itself is contracting for SIEMENS equipment, not some "business" - You need to learn more what is actually the main source of corruption. - Not business, not laws, but greedy people with power to decide where the people's taxes are spent.

Billy T.:

If Siemen's is using bribery and "kick-backs" then it is commiting crimes like any other entity. This is fine to investigate, as these -do- happen to be against the law for everyone. They are not, as it were, simply "business laws" relating to a government intrusion on the economy and other infringing forces on the market.

Moreover, you will note that Brazil has given its government the power to invest in business matters - to act as a corporation. Therefore, my problem with corruption relating back to government interference stands. Why would one pay kick-backs to politicians if they are not at all involved in business? One wouldn't.

It worked for a thousand years in Venice.


I am sorry, but that is a very limited experience. Venice was a small citystate. It basicly hasn't worked so far for ANY country, except a short Finish experience...

You will note that all businesses and militaries (or at least the effective militaries) throughout history have been meritocratic by nature.

But we are talking about societies and not businesses. And in societies loyalty, specially blind loyaly counts more than merit.

Also dictators are affraid of too smart people, because they can see things and get the idea that they could also be on power. So viewing from this side being smart in a dictatorship is a dangerous position...

Syzgys:

Actually, Venice was a major power and was far larger than a simple "small city-state" at its height of its power. Although its centre of power remained largely in Venice, its influence and its territory spread down the coast of the Balkans and into the Italian pennisula.

It was powerful enough to orchestrate the Crusades.


But we are talking about societies and not businesses. And in societies loyalty, specially blind loyaly counts more than merit.

This is not evidenced by the fact that even amongst "loyal" institutions, promotion tends to go to those who deserve it. Very rarely do people simply promote friends without any recourse to who amongst their friends are meritted.

How?
Isn't merit what makes for good leaders, not who their daddy is?

By history. Look up 5000 years of human history and see what was the most common form of society. It doesn't matter what we THINK should be the right form, it matters what IS happening.

Since the most common form has been dictatorship/monarchy (and we can count communism as such) it tells you that nature prefers monarchy. Basicly it is the top dog equivalent from the animal world.

Also please note that in politics there is no such a thing as right or wrong, just winners and losers.

...Why would one pay kick-backs to politicians if they are not at all involved in business? One wouldn't.You simply do not understand. One pays kick backs to the greedy politicians to get them to spend the tax money they have collected on a inferior product or service being sold by "a" instead of the better product of service sold by "b." The politician is not "envolved in business" usually does not know anything about the business etc. or the product - only which salesman is offering the bigger kick-back on some government purchase. I will admit that usuall if there is an "out of power" party, or a free press, then the product or service must have some relationship to the public need. In Africa even this is not necessary - ususally all that is required is that politically powerful Mr "a" is not the one to directly receive the bribe or kick back. - His wife or brother, with or without a “shame company,” receives the product or services then hands over the tax money to the seller.

In Brazil, there are many roads that on paper are paved for hundreds of Km, but in fact have only payment for the first and final 5Km at the terminal cities where the politician could pose for the dedication photos graphs, usually just before elections - So bad it was that now nothing can be dedicated by one in office 90 days (or less) before the elections. Brazil also has at least a dozen locomotives that have sat unused for 25years and are now too rusty to restore. (The rail road was never built - no bribes worth taking were offered I supose.) Etc.

The three months old, “vampire scandal"* has already been push out of the news papers by two more recent ones. Here is roughly how it worked:

All legislative bodies (US congress included) pass more private or “limited” laws than public laws. Brazilian congressional representative “A” would get law appropriating say $50,000 for city in his district to buy an ambulance and mayor would buy one for $45,000 (keeping $5,000 for the “administrative cost”, his time to make and send the purchase order.) Maker then sends $30,000 ambulance to city and $10,000 to congressional representative “A” ($5,000 is his profit) - in a few cases stupidly sent by check, Xerox of one I even saw in local newspaper. Nothing has been done to any of these congressional representatives as they have immunity from prosecution except from a committee of Congress and more that 70% of the congressional representatives have received these kickbacks so the few that were tried were all found "not guilty" as I recall, although one or two did resign.

If you prefer, discuss specifically this “Vampire scandal” instead of Siemen’s bribes to illustrate your point and refute mine that corruption mainly comes from greed people with power to spend the tax payers money.

You just do not understand. - keep making your ignorant statements and you may get both the Idiotic and Moronic statement prizes for 2006.

-----------------------------------
*Scandals come so fast newspapers need a catchy name to keep them before the public for at least a month.

Billy T.:

I am beginning to think you are either a moron or a sufferer from a form of moderate retardation.

Truly, I would seek medical help for what seems to be a genetic defect. Consider euthanasia immediatly.

But anyway...

What do you call government giving money to private companies for business deals?

I'll spell it out for you realllllll slow:

G O V E R N M E N T I N T E R V E N T I O N I N B U S I N E S S

Understand that, mind-mush? Or do I need to teach you it with puppets?

By history. Look up 5000 years of human history and see what was the most common form of society. It doesn't matter what we THINK should be the right form, it matters what IS happening.

By your same argument, we could say that the real function of cars is to not work. Look at the past 100 yeas of automobiles. They all stop working. Therefore, the way nature intends autos to run is to stop working.

...What do you call government giving money to private companies for business deals?...I call it purchasing goods and /or services. Is that Interferring with business? If so I just did it at the grocery store. (Speaking of idiots, have you looked in a mirror recently?)

You have it backwards WRT corruption. The business is giving the money ("under the table", etc) to the government man making the selection of which company to buy these goods and services from.

Billy T.:

I thought I would get a response in words, instead I get it in some retard groan.

Please, save us all from this. Go put have your mommy and daddy strap your helmet back on and start drooling over in the corner again like a nice little boy.

When a government entity acts like a business one, inevitably you have corruption, as it is using public funds in a manner which is open extremely to bribery and other forms of illegal transactions of funds. You can easily buy off a politician to make favourable deals. Specifically when any problems with the money rarely becomes a problem of that politician.

Billy T.:

I thought I would get a response in words, instead I get it in some retard groan.

Please, save us all from this. Go put have your mommy and daddy strap your helmet back on and start drooling over in the corner again like a nice little boy.

When a government entity acts like a business one, inevitably you have corruption, as it is using public funds in a manner which is open extremely to bribery and other forms of illegal transactions of funds. You can easily buy off a politician to make favourable deals. Specifically when any problems with the money rarely becomes a problem of that politician.

Do you know how the US Navy gets aircraft carriers?

Roman:

Yes I am aware of this. And I do not necessarily think it is a positive system, to say the least. It leads the way to military-industrial bribery and wasteful spending.

Roman:

Yes I am aware of this. And I do not necessarily think it is a positive system, to say the least. It leads the way to military-industrial bribery and wasteful spending.

So you would go for an even more wasteful system in which the government controls the means of production.

By your same argument,.

It is not even apples and oranges, but apples and a chair...

Roman:

One might be able to make the claim as the military is a legitimate function of any government, that them producing their own stuff may be more wise than simply outsourcing and such.

By your same argument, we could say that the real function of cars is to not work. Look at the past 100 yeas of automobiles. They all stop working. Therefore, the way nature intends autos to run is to stop working.

brilliant!

The real function of senior scientists is to apply for grants. Most time is spent on doing just that.

Roman:

One might be able to make the claim as the military is a legitimate function of any government, that them producing their own stuff may be more wise than simply outsourcing and such.

I guess it's time to start cleaning the lint off your brown shirts.