Redstate

....where the dominant news media outlets are the BBC and SABC, neither traditional friends of the United States.  Both are covering the Iraqi elections in a tone that can only be described as surprised -- things are going vastly better than either expected.  No massive bloodbath, and a better anticipated electoral turnout than the United States typically musters.

The end of the beginning, folks.

Kos isn't even right as often as the proverbial stopped clock.

Keep exposing that buffooon.

Kos simply hasn't been having a good... actually, politically speaking it all started going downhill for him from about 11/02 onwards.

Pity.

...was when it became obvious.  We're talking about the man's personal headspace, after all; prior to the midterm he could still tell himself that the Democrats were winning.

-M

I know it's important to keep up with what the other side is thinking but reading dKos is a lot more than I can handle.

...to a couple of cartoonists - Trudeau and Macruder, of course - who have also revealed themselves to be not just fools, but damfools.  I'd link directly, but why boost their traffic?

There are much better lefty sites (Yglesias comes to mind, Publius, etc.) where the writers are at least grounded in reality, even if they are ultimately wrong on most of the issues.  Kos, Wonkette, and lately Marshall, are off in their own corner of the universe, blissfully ignorant of the world as it actually is.

As I was watching the news of the election returns, something came to mind.  Iraq, Afghanistan, all of Eastern Europe, much of Central America: these are now democratic (if imperfect ones) nations or regions whose citizens have a degree of rights that they did not enjoy two decades or so ago.  How many of these locales would enjoy those freedoms today if leftist foreign policy had triumphed?

And you ignore the attempts of the left and of the foreign policy "realists", like Scowcroft, to prop up the Soviet Union in '89-'89.

It's par for the course, I'm afraid. My personal favorite object of scorn is the use of the phrase "feather in Mr. Bush's cap" - as if the President conducted this war just to create a day of "pretty pictures" for political concerns. Scumbags.

Obviously the Right needs this election to work, so it will be called a success well before an adequate measure of success is even established.  Needless to say, the validity of the election has yet to be determined; tune into what Iraqis are saying about it tomorrow, after the initial celebrating is finished.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a good deal of gloating on the Right which is of course premature; elections and democracy are two very dilfferent things, right?  So we had a vote, but has the Iraqi culture become democratic?  Because if it hasn't -- if Bush has failed -- then this truly is an exercise in "pretty pictures".  If the Iraqi electorate didn't just pick a government that accurately represents their views, then over time we will seen that the election failed -- that Bush failed.

Don't get me wrong: I seriously hope that this election was a success.  My brother's life depends on it.  I have absolutely zero stake in this election being a failure -- I'm hoping beyond hope that this is the beginning of the end of the insurgency, and that my brother will be able to come home soon.  I'm just saying that the gloating on the Right is a little premature, and it suggests a serious lack of maturity among those who are jumping to laud Bush (and themselves, natch) for this election when the ramifications of it aren't even beginning to be understood.  

This was the one chance we had at establishing democracy in Iraq, we will have no second chance.  I seriously hope that all the celebration currently under way is justified, but I really see hopefulness and faith on display more than cold, calculating rationality -- a dangerous situation.  I seriously hope that Iraqis buy the idea that a 60% turnout can result in an accurately representative government -- because if they don't, then it was a failure.  And I seriously hope that this means that the violence will end -- my entire family is.  But I don't see much proof that any of this is the case, despite the amount of premature celebration going on right now -- despite the cheerleading.

But your usage of "The Left" is anachronistic, obsolete, and borderline offensive. Will you lump the sentiments above - easy pickings, fish in a barrel - with these:

http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2005/01/party-atmosphere-in-baghdad.html

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2005/01/five-things-dean-supporters-can-do.htm
l

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/1/30/192249/293

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/1/30/165850/217

The "American Left" has been declared dead, immoral, traitorous, etc for about 6 years now (and thats only as long as I've been paying attention).

But explain to me why I, praktike, and others who are genuinely happy for the Iraqi people today (yes, even including some at dKos), should be lumped into a category with those who do not? Because we might agree on some domestic issues as pertain to taxation?

"The Left" is as useless a term - and as harmful, in your current usage context - as "neocon" or "right-wing". (or "moderate muslim".) I call upon you to recognize this and modify your rhetoric accordingly, so we can work together on common ground for those ideals - to my estimation, the majority - that we agree upon, even if we disagree on what political party (or one) whose card we will carry in our wallets.

I've never moved goalposts singlehandedly, but they sure look heavy.

We can't make them be democrats (small d; we have no desire to poison their minds and use the capital). We gave them their best shot, their first shot in decades. What they choose to make of it is their call. Every democratic culture has to start off with baby steps; expecting perfection (what you seem to suggest is the benchmark) makes something very good look kinda bad by comparison.

We gave them a gift. If they use it well, we're with them. If they end up spurning it, well, we didn't run through our entire arsenal the first time, and at any rate, they don't get a second chance from us. And I don't see the French giving it to them next time, either. Looks like, though, they're giving it a good run.

to work if the left doesn't give a rat's patootie about the outcome in Iraq, which, BTW, I believe to be the case.

If the left wanted us, that is the US, to win in Iraq we wouldn't be hearing this type of stuff from a variety of sources.

So when and how are you going to divine the voters' intent in Iraq to determine if they picked a slate that reflected their views? But I feel fairly confident predicting right now that they didn't.

Aziz makes a good point; I know many Lefties who want this to work out, if only because the ultimate fate of a good portion of humanity depends on what happens in the Middle East.  My closest friends on the left set aside their dislike of the President and put this country first.  What we need to do is excoriate the real Pinkos, the crackpots in the Boxer-McDermott-Kennedy axis, hereafter known as "BMK."  There are a few things that I must question, first amongst them being that if Monsieur Bergman has "absolutely zero stake" in this whole affair, then his brother's (a soldier I am assuming) life must be worth quite a bit to him, not to mention the lives of his fellow countrymen now and in the future.  Hell, if you use a very liberal (not political liberal, mind you) logic, then by extension, the lives of countless millions must not be worth much.  But then, us red-state rubes simply cannot comprehend the brilliance that comes out of Academia these days.  Woe is me; if only I had attended a public school.  God, take me to a Blue state now and rid me of this intellectually deprived Hell-hole known as "Flyover Country."

Also, now that the turnout estimates have shrunk from 72% to a mere 60%, what is the legtimacy cost?  I figure that since only a unanimous turnout and unanimous victory for one candidate would have been legitimate (just like Saddam's last electoral romp!), we will hear morose tales of how democracy has failed in a part of the world that cannot possibly accept or handle it.  Yes, because those of a richer hue should not decide their own fate and have a government where their officials can be held accountable.  Surely, only the pale Americans could know how to run a representative form of government.  What a crock!

This is the kind of self-centered bunk that leaves me utterly discombobulated.  If the mealy-mouthed protesters in San Francisco pulled their heads out of their collective posteriors whilst smelling the proverbial brew, they just might wake up out of their slumber in La-La Land.  Dean Acheson, Alger Hiss and Adlai Stevenson could not be prouder.

In my diary a few weeks ago, I had noted that I thought that turnouts would presage different possible results.

Shi'ite turnout:

    * Less than 50%, abject failure, we might as well pull out right now.

    * Greater than 70%, great, solid support for the beginnings of democratic institutions and a clear sign that there will be the opportunity to have a strong Iraqi government that can take over in a year or so.

    * Between 50-70%, more of the same.

Sunni turnout:

    * Less than 10%, strong predictor of imminent civil war.

    * More than 30%, good enough commitment to Iraq first.

    * Between 10-30%, more of the same.

Kurd turnout:

    * Less than 40%, strong predictor of attempted separatism.

    * More than 60%, good enough commitment to Iraq first.

    * Between 40-60%, more of the same.

It looks as if the Kurds and Shi'ites have made a clear statement of commitment to civil government. The Sunnis don't seem to have been willing to play (depending on actual turnout among Sunnis, reports seem to vary), but they are looking at the fact that the rest of the country has made a major commitment to go with civil government and a constitutional democracy. The Sunnis have lost. Now, they have to decide whether to accept the loss and play in the next round, or try again to disrupt the process when they see that there is a strong vote for that process outside their area.

As many have noted, Sunnis can lose a lot more by keeping the fighting going. They don't have the oil and they've lost the power. They cannot face a united Shi'ite and Kurdish Iraq and expect to win. While a war in the Sunni triangle can go on for many years, the Sunnis can also be isolated and treated as pariahs while the rest of Iraq gets on with reconstruction, development and democracy. I expect to see some Sunni face-saving moves in the next month or so, but I don't expect everyone in the Sunni community to go along with it. Low level insurgency is likely to continue until the time of the next round of elections.

This is about freedom, not just the systemic issues of establishing democracy.  Democracy isn't "established" the way that a monarchy or another autocratic regime can be - by force of arms and acts of soldiers.  Democracy is a process of time and change, as a society wakes up to the realization that their voice matters... not just the voice of the elite. A democracy is only as free as the people who participate in it believe themselves to be.

I'm no cheerleader.  But if pointing out when the nattering negativists who value their own political views and prejudices over all else (no matter the consequences for others) are obviously, egregiously, eye-bleedingly WRONG is now gloating... then why do blogs even exist?

The Right (though not trevino) was heavy in its ridicule of the Left when it was skeptical of WMD before the war, but I suppose memories are short.  Today was a good day, but a heck of alot more good days will be needed in the years ahead or this good day will have been for naught.  Perhaps a little humility and cautious hope is in order on both sides of the political spectrum.  Gloating doesn't paint either the gloater or the gloatee in a good light, and neither side has the track record to back it up anyway.

The aerial photo of the snake-like line ought to be on the front page of the NYT, the Washington Post and USA Today.

Not that it will, mind you. Fifty years ago, Life Magazine would have put it on its cover.

But the picture of so many people risking their lives to take countol of their future is stunning -- simply stunning!

Why should a photo from South Africa over ten years ago make the front page of newspapers today?

That's why we believed the WMD story.

Jason -

I opposed the decision to invade Iraq.  I was, and remain, deeply suspicious of the Bush administration's purposes in the Middle East, and am more than suspicious of many of the foreign policy actions and policies they've taken.

All of that said, the fact that there was an election in Iraq, and the fact that it was held with what has to be considered an extreme minimum of violence and disorder, is an excellent thing.  That there was an election at all, is a success, in and of itself.  It deserves celebration for its own sake.

No question that there's a long way from here to a robust, self-sufficient, and healthy Iraqi state, but a necessary first step has been taken.  No doubt folks on all sides of our political aisle will make various forms of hay out of the election, but for Iraqis, this was a good day, no matter what we think or say about it.

Cheers -

Can you explain this?

Thanks -

us into believing in WMD in reference to:

The Right (though not trevino) was heavy in its ridicule of the Left when it was skeptical of WMD before the war, but I suppose memories are short.

But the buck stops with the guy at the bully pulpit, who was in office when the call was made.

But enough squabbling for today, at least for me.  Let me lay on my happiness that the elections have gone well.  I may have seen a flicker of the light which awaits us at the end of the tunnel.

that is, conservatives, agree with that proposition. What is upsetting is the total, shameless dishonesty of those, left and right, that refuse to acknowledge that serious diplomatic, military, or intelligence official thought Iraq did not have WMD.

You are correct!

Could someone please help me get this egg off of my face?

This morning, Kos has an old article from the NYT, where someone is praising the Vietnamese elections in 1967, the year before Tet. You can all figure out what he's up to. The other thing he says this morning is the the GOP "is the party that believes it's own hype". Well, perhaps that's the difference between Repubs and the Left...even the Left knows it's ideas are out of gas.

"The Left" is certainly a very fuzzy term.  Often it appears to be just broad enough to embrace the people and opinions that its user finds thoroughly objectionable.

I certainly care about the war -- my brother's stationed there!  I want this to work, I really do, and you sit there slandering.  Typical.

YOU know the left doesn't like war, right?  Then why would ANYONE on the left want a war to get worse?  We want the war to be over!  Duh!!

You're just lucky Iraqis weren't voting on "Americans to leav Iraq: Yes or No?", because anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of them want the US out ASAP.

First, there are no negative consequences to pointing out that something has failed -- if it has failed.  If the Iraq war is going awry, the only people producing negative consequences are those who do not complain.  When things go wrong, but the political supporters of those in charge have such a vested interest in things at least appearing to be going right, then these people (the GOP) are causing grave harm to our country, for nothing other than pure partisanship.

You think I want to only have negative things to say?  Well, when your guy stops doing things so poorly and I have there is nothing to criticize him for, then I'll stop saying negative things.  Until then, it's simply un-American to support him.  You only support those who you agree with, not those who are simply on your side.  It's not about loyalty; it's about realism and objectivity -- the only tools we have for coming to the truth.  Faith that Bush is a "good man" isn't worth a hill of beans.  If he produces results, and those results are poor or worse, it's every American's duty to exclaim this at the top of their lungs -- he's our employee, and it's our job to be skeptical and make him prove his value to us.  That is democracy.

An election in which 91% of the Sunnis boycotted the vote isn't necessarily an actual election.  It's "pretty pictures".

I'm not saying this was a good or bad election; I'm just saying that right now it's just WAY to early to tell, and it appears that people are jumping the gun for emotional reasons -- which is very telling.

It's not a prerequisite for posting but it certainly helps.

Second. It's not slander if it's the truth.

Third. Why would the left want the war to get worse? For the same reason they sympathized with the USSR. It's their nature. You might even deign to read the comments from your godlets from dKos in the original post and give a whack at explaining them.

Maybe you could try this one out:

All the media keeps talking about is how happy the Iraqis are, how high turnout was, and how "freedom" has spread to Iraq. I had to turn off CNN because they kept focusing on the so-called "voters" and barely mentioned the resistance movements at all. Where are the freedom fighters today? Are their voices silenced because some American puppets cast a few ballots?

I can't believe the Iraqis are buying into this "democracy" bull**.

Fourth. It seems to me that the only people who think we want our troops there are you and your ilk. The president doesn't. I'd wager that 100% of the troops there, your "brother" included would like to come home.

How interesting...so although non elitist representative government seemed to be on the march in South Vietnam in 1967, by 1973 we had pulled out in shame. SO Markos says, Ah ha! This is George Bush's Vietnam.

We did not leave Vietnam because of the failure of the South Vietnamese independence movement; the movement failed because the aid and training they so DESPERATELY needed us for was withdrawn at a crucial point in the fight. A large part of North Vietnamese tactical strategy was betting that America would get sick of fighting before they would. Well, that turned out to be a smart gamble, didn't it?

Good thing we have a president with a spine and the guts to stick it out when the going gets tough.

How long are we staying in Iraq? As long as they need us to. America needs to stop being a fair weather friend to budding democracies.

And since people like to throw around who should care more about the outcome of the war, my dad is over there. I miss him desperately and would love to see him come home. But sometimes country is more important than self.

funny that you cite even Central America... It was a shame what that leftist Kissenger had done in Chile...

Thank God for Pinochet.

Before we get into a discussion in which the phrase "Operation Condor" gets bandied about, riddle me this:

How many communist or leftist despots voluntarily relinquished power?

Jason -

It was an actual election.

The Sunnis don't stand to gain much from it, and the Sunni areas are also the least secure.  So, Sunni participation was low.

Shi'as and Kurds turned out in pretty big numbers.  The overall percentage was something above 60%.  If I'm not mistaken, that's a better percentage of eligible voters than most American elections.  And, we don't risk our lives to vote.

Believe me when I tell that I'm not a fan of our current foreign policy, but the election in Iraq was more than pretty pictures.

Cheers -

I seem to remember 100% of Southerners voluntarily boycotting that election. Lincoln was a prop, yes?

Indeed, every year, something along the lines of 30-50% of Americans voluntarily boycott their own elections. Makes something of a mockery of democracy, yes?

Can I get a link for that one?

It wasn't exactly voluntary, but the Soviet empire is free of leftist despots. Much of it has real democracy. Few countries had any blood shed to have it happen. True, there are still a few parts that are parodies of democracy, starting with Russia, but no one would be justified in calling Putin a leftist.

Pinochet is an evil man. I have no idea if the evil he did was less than the evil that Chile would have suffered under Allende, an elected leader.

"Thank God for Pinochet"

Thomas, please tell me this post was a joke.  Pinochet was a brutal, authoritarian, murderous bastard.  His first acts on taking office by force of arms were to suspend the constitution and dissolve the Congress.  He is responsible for the murder and torture of thousands.  I do not, and will not ever, thank God for Pinochet or anyone like him.

As an aside, try an agenda like Pinochet's on here and you will find out exactly how many "blue staters" own guns, and exactly how good their aim is.

Regarding your riddle, the answer is precisely the number of fascist or right-wing despots who did the same, which is to say, zero.

Cheers -

First, the answer to the riddle: Pinochet comes right to mind.

He stopped that bastard Allende. He may have murdered thousands; count that against the alternative (inevitably, hundreds of thousands or millions). He left Chile better than he found it. He voluntarily stepped down. He made Chile into a functioning state again.

Your take on Chile's history is a bit simplified, but we'll leave that to the side.

I rather hope we never need anything like that.

And never, ever, doubt that what Allende would have ushered in would be a million times worse. I am at a total loss to think of a single communist regime without blood dripping off its hands through time.

Could you provide some evidence or a reference to show that the elected Allende would have been worse? Your claim seems to be extremely speculative. The Greek generals also justified their attacks on their democracy as protecting against communism. Maybe they were, but they were not as bloody as Pinochet.

Gorbachev was under pressure when he allowed the Soviet Union to end gracefully, but he didn't force a bloody coup or battle. Even the one military attempt to prop up the USSR was essentially nonviolent.

Do you support democracy in Venezuela, or did the Venezuelans give up their right to democracy when they elected a leftist reformer?

No communist government has ever come to power without bloodshed that would have made the Romans blanche. Allende's little trip was heading down all the same roads that every Marxist government, tinpot or not, ever had. I cannot prove that he wouldn't have been the first to bring about a cheery Eschaton, but let's just say that the track record isn't good.

I'm sorry; the question wasn't "more or less bloodless," the question was "voluntary." Simply, there is no such thing on the Left.

I'm entirely in favor of democracy in Venezuela, which is why I'm on a wait and see approach to that particular piece of refuse. If they nicely toss him out, no worries. If they don't, well, in the words of a young Ted Kennedy to his girlfriend, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Jason,

Defeatism is so telling... " When things go wrong, but the political supporters of those in charge have such a vested interest in things at least appearing to be going right, then these people (the GOP) are causing grave harm to our country, for nothing other than pure partisanship".

"You think I want to only have negative things to say?  Well, when your guy stops doing things so poorly"

Speaking of truth and objectivity... Our guy is doing things so poorly.

Why because Afganistain has had a free election for the first time in recorded History.  

Why because the Iraq held the first free election in what better then 50 years.

Why because in 22 months of a war we have lost 1436 service men and women...

You need a history lession, and to get a grip..

September 17, 1862 Battle of Antietam, The Bloodiest day of the civil war. Casulties 26,134 in one single day.

Why, why , why pay the price? They were only slaves!

June 6th 1944 operation overloard AKA D-Day

In summary, the OVERLORD operation could have benefited from better operational planning. The failure to analyze key options and exploit fully certain operational advantages probably prolonged the war to some degree. While seemingly simple things such dealing with the hedgerow situation and giving more consideration as to which sector would best support Allied armor were missing from the plan.  However, in balance OVERLORD must be viewed from an operation standpoint as one of history's greatest military achievements.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead, in one day!

Why, why pay the cost? What is a few less Jews.

7 August 1942-21 February 1943 on a little rock called Guadalcanal, in as many months of fighting american casulties  were 1,592 killed in action and 4,183 wounded. ,  1 battleship damaged, 6 crusiers sunk, 8 damaged, 8 destroyers sunk, 7 damaged, So many ships were sunk the bay was nicknamed iron bottom sound. ...  (oh we won)

On 19 February 1945, the 5th Marine Amphibious Corps (consisting of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Marine Divisions) landed on Iwo Jima. When the battle was over, 6821 American Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers  had died.

Why why why did we stop Japans oil and iron what over a few Chinese and Koreans...

I could go on and on and on... Our guy is doing things so poorly. Compaired to who? Lincolin, FRD, Churchill.  Do you realize you more civilians died in one night at Dresden, or Toyko.

In the annals of History anyway you dice it, or slice it, this campain has been remarkable in the LOW rate of casulties military and civilian alike,

and this is what you call doing poorly...

Had you and your kind been in charge the blacks would still be on the plantations pickin cotten.  The Brits would be goose steeping and and my kids would be speaking Japaneese...  

There was a time when the Left had a spine and not a wide yellow streak...

JIM

 note I am a disabled Vet and don't make light of any single casualtie, but one must keep things in perspective.

I seem to recall severial Southern states boycotted Lincolins 2nd term election too... I guess that wasn't a actual election either... Obivioulsy another Republican failure...

Jim

Thomas -

The transfer of power from Pinochet to his successor was, in fact, voluntary and bloodless.

Splendid.

Pinochet's predecessor, Allende, was elected to office.  He was deposed by force of arms, ushering in Pinochet.  Thousands died.  Don't know how many died under Allende.  Do you?

You may be correct that my understanding of Chile's political history is simplistic.  It is, however, informed by friends of mine and my wife's who lived through it, and who don't see Pinochet as quite the knight in shining armor that you seem to.

Agreed that, hopefully, it won't come to similar circumstances here.  If it does, you'll see me right in front with my gun clean and loaded.

Cheers -

The purpose is simple, go to Manhatten and take a good long look for yourself.  

The fact is we will never defeat Fasicst Islam as long as the the clerics and dictators of the region breed hate, intolerance, dispare.

So long as the Idea exists that the "infidel" can be, must be killed, there is no peace. It is a war of ideas, of cultures, tolerance vs intolerance, a culture of life vs a culture of death.

There can be no peace between fascist Islam and the world so long they wish to destroy and kill us. Look around it isn't just America they hate (were just the biggest target)  it is anyone who isn't islam.  They are causing terriorism pretty much everywhere... i.e Spanish, Dutch, Germans, French, Russians, Chineese, Thi's, Fillipeos, Serbs, Isrealies, Indians, Austrailians.

Need I go on...    

GW is trying to change their pargam... If we cannot moderate their ideas (fasicest Islam that is) the othger option is to destroy them all and we might as well start dropping the nucs and get it over with...  

Personally, I perfer to try to change their minds  as a first option, rather then send them all to meet Allah. Though it may come down to exactly that...  that is what is at stake...

Jim

This evil we face now the same one we faced with the Nazis, Fasicsts and nationalistic Japanese. They were supream and everyone else was there to be conqured, enslaved or killed.

Don't be silly. He was a vicious despot. I know that. He was all too mortal. It's just that the alternative was so much worse.

The standard isn't "How many died under Allende." The standard is "How many would have died if Allende (or a successor of similar or stronger bent) had continued?"

Yes, I'll be there gun in hand, too. But I'd be there one stage earlier than you.

and right wing despots have a history of ... oh wait... was that not meant as a comparison?

Either you believe in democracy or not.  Allende was elected.  If the regime obviates their democratic process, that would be one thing.  If they keep their democratic institutions in place... then we have to take it all in stride without undemocratic coups and "solutions" that involve killing a few people every day for decades.

First, right wing despots are not as bloodthirsty as lefty ones. We can argue Hitler all day, but no rightist would aggrandize the state that way. Even then, he was a second story man next to Stalin. And Mao.

Second, righties sometimes step down.

Third, righties leave their countries in less bad shape than lefties. See, e.g., Spain.

I'm not stupid enough to believe in democracy as an unalloyed good. Allende was elected. He was taking all the old familiar steps. While he may or may not have had the consent of the governed thing at his back (open question), he was still leading to a poisonous dictatorship, the value of which easily outweighs any value one might glean from the odd democratic election.

Results count too, in other words.

I don't accept the idea that leftists are more brutal... but I'll admit that Pinochet stepped down and left Chile in pretty decent shape.

Overall I can't see praising any brutal dictator based on their "ideology".

Except that the effects of those ideologies differ.

He stepped down... hard to find as prominent of a right winger to ever have done it.  I suppose it's debatable if he "stepped down"... but didn't he basically?  He relinquished centralized control until it just fell apart.

I'm still granting you Pinochet...

Franco.

If I understand correctly, Allende repeatedly overstepped the bounds of the constititional powers of his office.  He also was resisted by the Chilean Congress.  It's not clear to me that he was running away with the Chilean government.  I could be wrong about that.

Also, if I understand correctly, the economic disasters that Chile found itself in under his leadership were not unaffected by our policy of pushing Allende to the absolute economic wall.  We didn't like him, so he wasn't getting a thing from us, and the people of Chile be damned.

Also if I understand correctly, he had planned to announce a plebiscite and was prepared to step down if voted out.  We'll never know if he would do so, or not, because he died, or was killed, before that could happen.

I don't give a good g-d damn if a despot is righty or lefty.  They all richly deserve the boot.  The choice between a left wing tyrant and a right wing tyrant is a false choice.  We should be in the business of supporting neither.

Cheers -

The apparatus spun apart. Gorbachev just didn't try to loose the tanks, which might have been an even more futile gesture, given the state of the army at the time.

It helps that right wing dictators never achieved the sort of power lefties did. I'm not a huge fan of dictators of any stripe, but if I had to pick, based on the track record, I'd prefer the righties. Fewer death camps, fewer assassinations, less likelihood that the economy gets overrun by bloodthirsty bureaucrats, less imposition on religious freedom.

Not you -- but the next fellow who responds to this, click "Parent" a few times and note my comment on Hitler.

But he's a bit more attenuated than Pinochet. He made the place safer, but he only stepped down when his heart did.

And you could also grant Daniel Ortega.

Better yet, let's drop this stupid discussion.  

Who's worse, totalitarian Communists or totalitarian fascists?  They both murder their people by the thousands.  Frankly, I don't give a crap who's worse.  They're both sufficiently bad enough for my taste.

To hell with the lot of them.

Cheers -

But when we're locked in a death struggle with a giant left-wing tyranny, and the leader of one of our near neighbors has an AK with a gold-plate bearing the words "To My Dear Friend Salvador, from Fidel" on the muzzle and Red Army scouts hanging around town, I'll pick the righty, thank you. If we have to support one or the other -- and in that situation, I suspect we do -- we pick the enemy of our enemy.

(1) It helps clarify the mind when there's a crazy cowboy to the North who has precisely no problems removing left-wing crazies from power in this Hemisphere.

(2) Neither is morally better, per se. But my point stands: Your life expectancy is significantly better with the righties than the lefties.

Thomas -

I understand, and respect, the point you're making.  By "respect", I mean I recognize and appreciate that your interest is in the greater good, and that you aren't supporting dictators as something good in themselves, but only as the lesser of two, or several, evils.

I part ways with you here, however.  The position you present is one that has been not uncommon in our history, especially post WWII, and I think it has led us down paths we would better have avoided.  In the name of fighting communism, socialism, or what have you, we've supported some of the cruelest bastards around, and have compromised our own principles, traditions, and laws, both here and abroad.

Maybe it was a necessary and inescapable cost of a necessary and inescapable struggle.  I am, however, unconvinced of that.

When it gets to the point where people are kidnapped, imprisoned, raped, beaten, burned, shocked, tortured, murdered, maimed, and thrown into the ocean from helicopters as a deliberate practice of the state, the distinction between right and left loses its significance for me.

I think we fundamentally disagree here.  I'm happy to leave it at that.

Cheers -

Manifestly, our jokers were usually not the cruelest. They were just close.

But as you say, we leave it there.

because his departure was anything but his idea but mostly because I wasn't talking about leftists.

Are you serious about who is worse? I mean I know who the left hates the most, but the worst are without doubt communist dictatorships.

When has any fascist or rightwing regime ever carried out killing on the scale of Lenin during the Collectivization period, Stalin, Mao during the Cultural Revolution, or Pol Pot? While the left got their knickers all in a knot over a few thousand Argentines who were killed hardly a word was mentioned about the millions in Cambodia.

I don't want to descend into comparative atrocities here, but the least that should be done for the sake of the simple truth is to acknowledge that history proves Thomas is right. Right wing dictatorships as a rule fade of their own volition and leave an essentially undamaged nation behind them.

"Right wing dictatorships as a rule fade of their own volition and leave an essentially undamaged nation behind them"

It's an interesting point, one I hadn't thought about before, and one that, off the top of my head, seems to hold up.

I'd say Hitler gave the communists a good run for the money, and I doubt he would have faded quietly from the scene, but I think both you and Thomas are, historically, correct to see him as an exception on that count.  Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are no doubt the champions.  Pol Pot lags behind pretty much only because he had less people available to be killed.

My point throughout has not been to compare who's worse, but to state my own conviction that we shouldn't be supporting either.  Totalitarian and militantly, violently authoritarian regimes are inherently opposed to what we stand for as a nation.  

I'm not saying we should never trade with or have other diplomatic relations with either.  I'm saying we should not be funding either, providing them with weapons, training, or other materials for carrying out their violence, or supporting them directly with the intervention of our military or intelligence services.

That's more than an opinion of mine, it's my conviction.  Obviously many folks feel otherwise.

Cheers -

"hardly a word was mentioned about the millions in Cambodia"

As I recall it, this statement is not correct.

It's true to say that damn little -- basically nothing -- was done.  More shame to us and others.

Cheers -