Taiwan & China

[XPav]

I don't think we've had a good flamewar that's involved China yet.

So, I'll get the ball started...

Who in their right mind thinks that Taiwan, a sovereign state in all but name with a democratically elected government, should be assimilated into corrupt and utterly undemocratic People's Republic of China?

[quatoria]

I can't imagine us getting into a flameware over this. Post revolution China became an example of authoritarian tyrrany. Who would want to see China conquer anyone else?

[Kool Moe Dee]

Hitler.

[Kool Moe Dee]

Fuck, quatoria jumped in before I could end this madness before it starts... :evil:

[quatoria]

Not as if it matters, Kool. I can't think of anybody on the forum who'd take the "YES! CHINA SHOULD CRUSH TAIWAN BENEATH THEIR HEEL," side of the argument. What's happening there is a tragedy.

[Anders Hallin]

YES! CHINA SHOULD CRUSH TAIWAN BENEATH THEIR HEEL!
http://www.iisg.nl/~landsberger/images/maotryp.jpg

[Machfive]

YES! CHINA SHOULD CRUSH TAIWAN BENEATH THEIR HEEL!

I was gonna post this hours ago, but I thought, "Man, that'd be pretty gay."

[Kalle]

I don't think we've had a good flamewar that's involved China yet.

So, I'll get the ball started...

Who in their right mind thinks that Taiwan, a sovereign state in all but name with a democratically elected government, should be assimilated into corrupt and utterly undemocratic People's Republic of China?

Maggie Thatcher.

She sold out Hong Kong after all...

[Midnight Son]

Look here, if Taiwan is taken over by the mainlanders, what happens to MOTHERBOARD PRICES!? That's the real issue! Keep Taiwan free!!

[Lizard_King]

Who in their right mind thinks that Taiwan, a sovereign state in all but name with a democratically elected government, should be assimilated into corrupt and utterly undemocratic People's Republic of China?

I've got a related question that might be a bit harder to answer pleasantly. Who in their right mind thinks any country other than the PRC is going to have the final say in whether such an assimilation occurs?

[Rywill]

I do. If China decided to forcibly assimilate Taiwan, I think there's a better-than-even chance the US would get involved, depending on the administration. Total conjecture on my part, but if I had to lay money, that's where it would be.

[Dirt]

What makes you think that Taiwan is uncorrupt?

[voltaic]

Maggie Thatcher.

She sold out Hong Kong after all...
Whoa, whoa, whoa... WHAT?

[Lizard_King]

I do. If China decided to forcibly assimilate Taiwan, I think there's a better-than-even chance the US would get involved, depending on the administration. Total conjecture on my part, but if I had to lay money, that's where it would be.

Really? Involved in what form? I sincerely cannot imagine the US taking a concrete action in that direction. I mean, I also have difficulty imagining what sort of sabre-rattling bullshit would spur a Chinese invasion, but I am pretty certain that should it happen there is not a whole lot that can be done about it, unless you are advocating the use of the nuclear "option". Invading China, or even thinking about invading China, is a lot more to manage than invading pissant Middle Eastern countries.

And really, what was that about Margaret Thatcher?

[MikeJ]

Invading China, or even thinking about invading China, is a lot more to manage than invading pissant Middle Eastern countries.

I agree that invading China would be nuts, but wouldn't the task be to keep China from successfully invading Taiwan? They would have to move their troops and material and ongoing supplies across the strait.

[Lizard_King]

I agree that invading China would be nuts, but wouldn't the task be to keep China from successfully invading Taiwan? They would have to move their troops and material and ongoing supplies across the strait.

Well, yeah. But if you don't think the Chinese would regard that as a formal declaration of war, that is where we part company. Our naval outlook in the region would also be somewhat bleak, since the Chinese have spent their R&D funds on inexpensive defensive countermeasures to our hugely expensive offensive capability.

Moreover, while China has no real projection capability, and Taiwan would hardly be a quick n' easy invasion prospect for them, I have a feeling that when most of a country's military resources are aimed in that direction for the last 50 years, they can come up with some interesting options.

[Kalle]

Maggie Thatcher.

She sold out Hong Kong after all...
Whoa, whoa, whoa... WHAT?

What, you think the citizens of Hong Kong particularly *wanted* to be governed by a Chinese puppet?

[MikeJ]

I agree that invading China would be nuts, but wouldn't the task be to keep China from successfully invading Taiwan? They would have to move their troops and material and ongoing supplies across the strait.

Well, yeah. But if you don't think the Chinese would regard that as a formal declaration of war, that is where we part company.

Sure it would be war. I assumed the asking nicely option would be out if the PRC were already invading. It would be a very dangerous situation if the US chose to defend Taiwan. But I still think there would be options between doing nothing and nuking or attempting to conquer mainland China. The UN forces didn't try to conquer the PRC after it intervened in Korea.

I guess it comes down to the US Navy's chances of wrecking an invasion attempt without using nukes. Is there good reason to be confident one way or the other? What are some of these countermeasures you mentioned?

[Jason McCullough]

I thought this came up a while back. I found some article that said China wouldn't be able to invade Tiawan until 2020, and this was assuming the US abandons Tiawan. The problem is that China doesn't have crap for amphibious operations, really, and they're not getting much better at it.

Tiawan, Kashmir, and North Korea are the only remaining places a nuclear exchange could actually break out, I think.

[Brandon Clements]

The US and China get along decently right now, especially in trade. I doubt they're going to do anything that would upset that. Taiwan also has a pretty decent defense capabliliy, especially in aircraft and naval forces.

[quatoria]

Who in their right mind thinks that Taiwan, a sovereign state in all but name with a democratically elected government, should be assimilated into corrupt and utterly undemocratic People's Republic of China?

I've got a related question that might be a bit harder to answer pleasantly. Who in their right mind thinks any country other than the PRC is going to have the final say in whether such an assimilation occurs?

No one. We're sure as hell not going to war with them over Taiwan, and the odds of the Bush administration imposing economic sanctions on China are virtually nil.

[Anders Hallin]

What makes you think that Taiwan is uncorrupt?
It was founded by the Chinese Nationalists who managed to motivate a Communist revolution, how could it be corrupt?

[Lizard_King]

No one. We're sure as hell not going to war with them over Taiwan, and the odds of the Bush administration imposing economic sanctions on China are virtually nil.

You're really on a roll today. Of course, the Clinton administration would have done all that, in between rounding up Al Qaeda and discovering the cure for cancer.

[XPav]

According to the 2002 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html), Taiwan ranks 29th out of 102 in last corrupt countries.

Finland is number 1.
Canada is number 7.
The United States is 16.
China is 59.
Bangladesh is 102.

I know Taiwan was founded by the ultra-corrupt KMT, but 50 years means for a lot of changes.

[quatoria]

No one. We're sure as hell not going to war with them over Taiwan, and the odds of the Bush administration imposing economic sanctions on China are virtually nil.

You're really on a roll today. Of course, the Clinton administration would have done all that, in between rounding up Al Qaeda and discovering the cure for cancer.

The odds of ANY US administration imposing trade sanctions or taking military action against China is virtually nil. Better now? Is there some secret codeword you'd like me to use to indicate that I'm simply referring to the current administration and not aiming a specific critique at Bush himself? Or am I forbidden from uttering His holy name? Jesus christ, Lizard.

[Lizard_King]

The odds of ANY US administration imposing trade sanctions or taking military action against China is virtually nil. Better now? Is there some secret codeword you'd like me to use to indicate that I'm simply referring to the current administration and not aiming a specific critique at Bush himself? Or am I forbidden from uttering His holy name? Jesus christ, Lizard.

Yes. That is much better. You don't think there is a teensy difference between the two allegations, substantively?


I know Taiwan was founded by the ultra-corrupt KMT, but 50 years means for a lot of changes.

That is really interesting. I was reflexively inclined to agree with the view of Taiwanese corruption initially posited.

[Midnight Son]

Somebody joined the "Word of the Month Club" recently! :lol:

[Lizard_King]

Somebody joined the "Word of the Month Club" recently! :lol:

Recently? I've been pedantic for years now. Decades, even. But I'll make a point of including some subtitles for you... :)

[Midnight Son]

That will come in handy on the short bus to Kmart when I buy new underwear. :lol:

[Jason McCullough]

That corruption index is based on public opinion surveys, so I don't know if I'd put too much stock in it.

[Lizard_King]

That corruption index is based on public opinion surveys, so I don't know if I'd put too much stock in it.

What would you use to measure it?

[Rywill]

I guess it comes down to the US Navy's chances of wrecking an invasion attempt without using nukes. Is there good reason to be confident one way or the other? What are some of these countermeasures you mentioned?
Yeah, I'd like to know that too. I don't think there's an inexpensive countermeasure to something like a Tomohawk missile or AEGIS cruiser.

[XPav]

From a naval standpoint, the Taiwanese Air Force and Navy are more than capable of defending the island of Taiwan against the PRC.

The PRC's Navy is a joke, their air force not much better. The Chinese army still relies on numbers and foot travel, and doesn't have any experience in amphibious warfare. Talk about numbers all you want, but they can't swim across the strait and without naval and air superiority, they can't get boats across the strait either.

Remember, the US sells F-16s to Taiwan, and we do have a vested interest (motherboards? memory?) and historical support for the Taiwanese government, and any defense of Taiwan by the US Navy can't be completely ruled out.

As for the corruption index, yeah, Taiwan isn't the most corrupt country in the world, but if you read the fine print on that list I posted, it does say that they're right about the borderline (which is scary, because that points out that most every country outside the 1st World in the world is corrupt).

[voltaic]

Maggie Thatcher.
She sold out Hong Kong after all...
Whoa, whoa, whoa... WHAT?
What, you think the citizens of Hong Kong particularly *wanted* to be governed by a Chinese puppet?
You realize that the British lease on Hong Kong which expired in 1999 was set up like 90 or 100 or something years ago right? Which would put it just a wee bit before Thatcher was around.

I think it's time to re-examine the public education system in commie Sweden! :lol:

[Lizard_King]

I guess it comes down to the US Navy's chances of wrecking an invasion attempt without using nukes. Is there good reason to be confident one way or the other? What are some of these countermeasures you mentioned?
Yeah, I'd like to know that too. I don't think there's an inexpensive countermeasure to something like a Tomohawk missile or AEGIS cruiser.
That's if you're thinking from a defensive standpoint for the Chinese. I don't think anyone is foreseeing matters getting that far along. I was referring to it more as a curiousity, this (http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/asiachinesemilbal.pdf) sort of thing:

China is already producing some impressive anti-ship missiles and short and medium-range ballistic missiles. It has several hundred such missiles deployed opposite Taiwan, including the new DF-15s tested near Taiwan in 1995 and 1996. China probably now has several hundred DF-15s (CSS-4/M-9 – 600 kilometers and 500 kilogram payload) in the vicinity of Taiwan, and they offer an important compensation for China’s inability to penetrate Taiwan’s air defenses.
Moreover, the DF-15 is only part of the Chinese development program. Its other new missile programs include the DF-21 (1,200 kilometers and now in production), DF-21X (3,000 kilometers and in development), DF-25 (in development, 1,700 kilometers), DF-31 (8,000 kilometer solid fuel for SLBM launch), and DF-41 (12,000 kilometer mobile IRBM/ICBM in development) ballistic missiles will radically change its conventional and theater nuclear war fighting capabilities.
They will do so, however, without any clear evidence of major Russian support. In fact, the transfer of US W-88 weapons technology has eased China’s problems in designing and manufacturing Chinese theater nuclear missile warheads in ways which may prove notably more important that any Russian technology transfers since 1990.) Nevertheless, most of its deployed ICBMs and most of its deployed IRBMs are dated.
(Obvious) note: by "transfer" he means this (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_04-05/rgam99.asp)

I find it interesting because so much of China's military is obviously premised around bluster and defensiveness rather than planning for a real war, yet their missile program has some real innovation, regardless of where they are obtaining their tech.

Plus, on an even more random note, I think they are the first major US rival that is testing out an NCO corps in its navy these days...while our comparative advantage is still huge, it is nonetheless a potentially significant turn of events.

[Guido Jones]

Maggie Thatcher.
She sold out Hong Kong after all...
Whoa, whoa, whoa... WHAT?
What, you think the citizens of Hong Kong particularly *wanted* to be governed by a Chinese puppet?
You realize that the British lease on Hong Kong which expired in 1999 was set up like 90 or 100 or something years ago right? Which would put it just a wee bit before Thatcher was around.

I think it's time to re-examine the public education system in commie Sweden! :lol:

The lease Expired on June, 30 1997 - and I have no idea how Thatcher even comes into this unless he's trying to say that the UK's Imperalistic tendencies were removed because of her.

[Kalle]

Maggie Thatcher.
She sold out Hong Kong after all...
Whoa, whoa, whoa... WHAT?
What, you think the citizens of Hong Kong particularly *wanted* to be governed by a Chinese puppet?
You realize that the British lease on Hong Kong which expired in 1999 was set up like 90 or 100 or something years ago right? Which would put it just a wee bit before Thatcher was around.

I think it's time to re-examine the public education system in commie Sweden! :lol:

Hong Kong Island was not included in the lease, and was for all legal purposes British territory. Thatcher was the one who negotiated the deal to hand over all of Hong Kong way back in 1984.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/19/newsid_2538000/2538857.stm

Now what was that about the US public education system...

[graller]

Could not have said it better myself Kalle - Hong Kong island was British territory permanently ceded at the end of the Opium wars. When they needed more space to grow in 1898 they signed a 99 year lease on the "New Territories". The issue for 97 was would the colony remain viable in 1997 without the New Territories. Maggie decided it wouldn't and agreed to give them back the whole thing.

[Lizard_King]

Could not have said it better myself Kalle - Hong Kong island was British territory permanently ceded at the end of the Opium wars. When they needed more space to grow in 1898 they signed a 99 year lease on the "New Territories". The issue for 97 was would the colony remain viable in 1997 without the New Territories. Maggie decided it wouldn't and agreed to give them back the whole thing.

So I guess imperialist land grabbing under false pretences only happens when Americans do it?

[Jason McCullough]

That corruption index is based on public opinion surveys, so I don't know if I'd put too much stock in it.

What would you use to measure it?

I don't know, but public opinion surveys are a shaky enough measure of how corrupt a government as is; when you start compare those surveys across national boundaries, you might as well roll the dice. What if Tiawan and South Korea "expect" different levels of corruption?

[XPav]

Geez Jason, if you're concerned about the methodology, go read the entire damn report (http://www.globalcorruptionreport.org/download.shtml) and tell us what your problem is with the methodology. The "well, I dunno, maybe that report isn't right.... maybe... i dunno...." argument isn't exactly a strong one.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah, part 24 says they combine a bunch of different methods; I thought the reference to "surveys" on the initial page meant it was just a poll.

[Kalle]

Could not have said it better myself Kalle - Hong Kong island was British territory permanently ceded at the end of the Opium wars. When they needed more space to grow in 1898 they signed a 99 year lease on the "New Territories". The issue for 97 was would the colony remain viable in 1997 without the New Territories. Maggie decided it wouldn't and agreed to give them back the whole thing.

So I guess imperialist land grabbing under false pretences only happens when Americans do it?

I see you are side-stepping the whole issue of the citizens of Hong Kong living in a democracy vs a repressive dictatorship.

[Lizard_King]

I see you are side-stepping the whole issue of the citizens of Hong Kong living in a democracy vs a repressive dictatorship.
Just trying to savour the irony, myself. I look forward to the clarification of this whole intervention to save democracy thing. Or, put gently: "Iraq".

[graller]

Lizard - No one lived on Hong Kong when it was ceded to the British. It was an empty rock island at the end of the river downstream from Canton and across from the major Portugese trading station of Macau. Its entire population was made up of Chinese who willingly came to work/live in a British territory and the original British traders and dependents. Hong Kong would not exist without the British.

[Lizard_King]

Lizard - No one lived on Hong Kong when it was ceded to the British. It was an empty rock island at the end of the river downstream from Canton and across from the major Portugese trading station of Macau. Its entire population was made up of Chinese who willingly came to work/live in a British territory and the original British traders and dependents. Hong Kong would not exist without the British.

Look, don't mistake me for a person that is ignorant of Chinese history or in favour of handing over capitalist democracies to communists. Pre 1999 Hong Kong is a libertarian wet dream.

But there is also no question that the opium wars were a blatant, violent grab for concessions on the part of the British and other foreign powers, and that there is little legitimacy in that sort of thing despite its fantastic results. Now, personally, I'd raise the same objection I do to French folks who get a kick out of "reminding" me of who helped who achieve independence: the government that was engaged in those situations is long gone, and there is not much sense in giving things "back" to those that overthrew the established order, especially several iterations later.

Thatcher was a lot of things, but no friend of totalitarianism. I think her choice has left Hong Kong with a tenable if not ideal situation. I would have preferred otherwise, but I don't think it's the binary that some here would propose.

In any case, my main deal was with the apparent cognitive dissonance that afflicts some when it comes to defending or promoting democratic liberalism against tyranny. I am unable to figure out what the crucial piece is that tilts something from blatant imperialist aggression irrespective of the outcome to a noble act.

I am really hoping it is not my offhand theory (when someone European does it) that is operative.

[Anders Hallin]

Thatcher was a lot of things, but no friend of totalitarianism.
Indeed not. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/595000/images/_599659_pin_thatch300.jpg) :D


I am really hoping it is not my offhand theory (when someone European does it) that is operative.
The difference between conquering a country and not giving something you're not legally obligated to give back to a totalitarian regime is somehow unclear to you?

[Jason McCullough]

I don't know, "totalitarianism vs. imperialism" is a Hobson's choice. Didn't work out too well in Vietnam either.....

[Lizard_King]

The difference between conquering a country and not giving something you're not legally obligated to give back to a totalitarian regime is somehow unclear to you?
But they did conquer it, in a war more unjustly waged than anything America has dreamt up lately (a good parallel would be the Spanish American War). Whatever the claim China had to it, they certainly had more of one than Britain, and the latter were able to ensure the changeover would be fairly decent. As can be seen by the lack of capital flight from Hong Kong.

I still think the best option would have been independence, but I somehow doubt that was a credible possibility given China's hypersensitivity.

[Anders Hallin]

The difference between conquering a country and not giving something you're not legally obligated to give back to a totalitarian regime is somehow unclear to you?
But they did conquer it, in a war more unjustly waged than anything America has dreamt up lately (a good parallel would be the Spanish American War). Whatever the claim China had to it, they certainly had more of one than Britain, and the latter were able to ensure the changeover would be fairly decent. As can be seen by the lack of capital flight from Hong Kong.
Yes, but that was over a hundred and fifty years ago. They were trying to decide what to do with it now. They had no obligation to give back a large part of Hong Kong, and it was not conflicted territory anymore, so just keeping it would not be the same thing as invading a country.
Now, if this was 1839 I would certainly have opposed it, but, you know, it isn't.

[Kalle]

Now Lizard, what was that about Thatcher not being a friend of totalitarianism? I'd like to hear that. Does your definition on totalitarianism magically exclude right-wing dictators?

[Anders Hallin]

Now Lizard, what was that about Thatcher not being a friend of totalitarianism? I'd like to hear that. Does your definition on totalitarianism magically exclude right-wing dictators?
Well, when he wasn't murdering everyone who disagreed with him, he did do great things for the Chilean economy.

[Midnight Son]

Let's not forget how Adolf Hitler got the german economy moving again! Military spending can do wonders for an economy. Of course, you may get a notion to use all the weapons.....

[Kalle]

You said the H-word. This thread is now officially shot to hell.

[Midnight Son]

Someone had to do it.

[Lizard_King]

Now Lizard, what was that about Thatcher not being a friend of totalitarianism? I'd like to hear that. Does your definition on totalitarianism magically exclude right-wing dictators?
Do you consider Churchill an advocate of totalitarianism for allying with Stalin? You will recall that at one point, such as the one when Mrs. Thatcher was in charge, Russia was more than a source of mail order brides.

Besides, Pinochet was hardly that bad (I know you were waiting for that).

[Midnight Son]

And Hitler loved his Alsatian bitch, Blondi. :)

[Kalle]

Now Lizard, what was that about Thatcher not being a friend of totalitarianism? I'd like to hear that. Does your definition on totalitarianism magically exclude right-wing dictators?
Do you consider Churchill an advocate of totalitarianism for allying with Stalin? You will recall that at one point, such as the one when Mrs. Thatcher was in charge, Russia was more than a source of mail order brides.

Besides, Pinochet was hardly that bad (I know you were waiting for that).

Waiting for it? No, I was waiting for you to make apologies for Thatcher, but somehow you've managed to excede my expectations by several orders of magnitude.

[Chris Nahr]

Adolf Hitler also had a nice chalet in the alps.

[Anders Hallin]

Do you consider Churchill an advocate of totalitarianism for allying with Stalin? You will recall that at one point, such as the one when Mrs. Thatcher was in charge, Russia was more than a source of mail order brides.
A strategical alliance in the face of one of the most formidable war machines ever, that I don't really mind, it's not like they kept it up for that many minutes after the war was over.
Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, who, though he didn't fight one of the most horrible regimes ever, did.. uh.. overthrow a democratically elected government and murder a bunch of people... (when it would have been just as easy to wait a few months-a year)

[Midnight Son]

About World War II alliances: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Afterwards, we put up a wall."

[Jason McCullough]

Now Lizard, what was that about Thatcher not being a friend of totalitarianism? I'd like to hear that. Does your definition on totalitarianism magically exclude right-wing dictators?
Do you consider Churchill an advocate of totalitarianism for allying with Stalin? You will recall that at one point, such as the one when Mrs. Thatcher was in charge, Russia was more than a source of mail order brides.

Besides, Pinochet was hardly that bad (I know you were waiting for that).

I wasn't aware Allende was allied with the USSR. Edit: oh, he did favor closer economic ties.

And jesus christ, defending Pinochet......

[Lizard_King]

Before we totally derail on a Pinochet tangent, let me just get back to the previous tangent:


Yes, but that was over a hundred and fifty years ago. They were trying to decide what to do with it now. They had no obligation to give back a large part of Hong Kong, and it was not conflicted territory anymore, so just keeping it would not be the same thing as invading a country.
Now, if this was 1839 I would certainly have opposed it, but, you know, it isn't.

That is precisely what I was getting at, rather than seeking to defend Thatcher all that much. Does this mean that should you be alive 150 years from now you would do an about-face on the Iraq question? I don't think Imperialism on behalf of democracy could have gotten to much of a worse start than the Opium Wars.


I wasn't aware Allende was allied with the USSR. Edit: oh, he did favor closer economic ties.
If by "close economic ties" you mean turning Chile into yet another disastrous worker's paradise, then yes. Especially troublesome when his mandate came from a bare plurality. It is all too often that I hear "elected democratically" as some sort of inherent good; it's one measure of many.
The strongest argument I have heard against the way the Allende situation went down with whatever degree of US intervention (it tends to vary depending on whose opinion you hear) is that the Chileans could have done it themselves given some more time. That is arguable; what is not, for me, is that Chile was better off with almost anyone other than Allende, and that includes Pinochet for all his blatant cronysim and occasional atrocities.

And jesus christ, defending Pinochet......
I'm just here to speed you to an early grave, via brain embolism if possible. Maybe a few crippling strokes beforehand would be great. Have a nice day.

[Kalle]

I wasn't aware Allende was allied with the USSR. Edit: oh, he did favor closer economic ties.
If by "close economic ties" you mean turning Chile into yet another disastrous worker's paradise, then yes. Especially troublesome when his mandate came from a bare plurality. It is all too often that I hear "elected democratically" as some sort of inherent good; it's one measure of many.
The strongest argument I have heard against the way the Allende situation went down with whatever degree of US intervention (it tends to vary depending on whose opinion you hear) is that the Chileans could have done it themselves given some more time. That is arguable; what is not, for me, is that Chile was better off with almost anyone other than Allende, and that includes Pinochet for all his blatant cronysim and occasional atrocities.

It's nice to hear you express your contempt for democracy. Not to mention that you spit on the graves of the people who were killed and tortured at the hands of Pinochet's regime. It makes it that much easier to categorize you as fascist scum. If you approve of bettering society through murder, torture and despotism I doubt I can properly express my feelings for you in words. People like you disgust me.

[Lizard_King]

It's nice to hear you express your contempt for democracy. Not to mention that you spit on the graves of the people who were killed and tortured at the hands of Pinochet's regime. It makes it that much easier to categorize you as fascist scum. If you approve of bettering society through murder, torture and despotism I doubt I can properly express my feelings for you in words. People like you disgust me.
Please, try. I assure you I will make every effort to take it into account next time I flog the peasants.

[Dirt]

About World War II alliances: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Afterwards, we put up a wall."

If Churchill and Roosevelt had allowed Chiang Kai Shek to be a part of the planning against Japan, China might be a democracy today.

[Jason McCullough]

Just so I have this down: "it's ok to violently overthrow the government and kill your political opponents as long as the guy who won the last election is making a few changes democratly and getting friendly with communists. Oh yeah, throwing people's relatives out of airplanes is ok too."

What was Allende doing that was so bad? Specifics, please.

[Lizard_King]

Just so I have this down: "it's ok to violently overthrow the government and kill your political opponents as long as the guy who won the last election is making a few changes democratly and getting friendly with communists. Oh yeah, throwing people's relatives out of airplanes is ok too."
A "few" political changes? It would be easier to continue this discussion if there were the slightest possibility that you won't simply go apeshit on the straw men with your straw club, all the while laughing in a straw-like manner. But I digress.


What was Allende doing that was so bad? Specifics, please.


Just keep in mind as we talk about this, he was operating as a man elected by 36.3% of the population, as opposed to the nearest other candidates, Alessandri with around 34.9% (pretty much take all of Allende's views and reverse them), and whoever the hell the Christian Democrat in-betweener was at like 28%. It is not even a case of lacking a generalized mandate like the last US election; it is rather as if GWB had taken every measure to turn America into an Evangelist theocracy after his election.

Allende nationalized every major industry in the country, expropriating foreign firms without significant compensation and just as often screwing over locals. He did the same with the banks, and anyone who has experience with Latin America can tell you that what you call collusion and corruption in America and Europe is comically small compared to the sort of things that are par for the course here, and predictably enough they became exponentially worse when the profit incentive was removed.

By 1973, you had all the standard symptoms of a collapsing economy, from high levels of inflation to those trendy bread/oil/bank lines filling the streets. He had taken Chile's struggling economy and flushed it down the shitter just as the world as a whole was entering serious depression.

As for his policy decisions re: Communism, there is no question that the Kissinger view of Chile as a spearhead for Communist infiltration in Latin America, except in the most literal of terms, was overblown. Equally, there is no question that he was seeking a Cuba-like relationship with the Soviet Union and virtually any other socialist country that would listen, the difference being that unlike Fidel there were few takers. So the Ponzi scheme that is international Socialism could not survive without the sort of foreign backing that kept Cuba propped up for all those years, and he knew he was pretty much screwed in terms of effecting the reforms he sought.

So rather than resign, or seek a compromise, or anything of the sort, he continued heedlessly down the same path, which is a pretty stupid thing to do when the local military considers you an enemy.

He was overthrown, killed, etc. Those who refused to recognize the legitimacy of Pinochet (understandably) and resisted violently were killed (about 320+ summarily executed). Many who didn't do anything approaching violence were killed (for the overall count of ~1500). More than 13,000 leftists were imprisoned, and presumable not living the high life in white collar prisons. Allegations of officially condoned torture permeated every level of the administration.

And Pinochet hocked all that had been nationalized in a huge thank you to all of his cronies. Astoundingly, private corruption proved so much more efficient than socialist corruption that Chile has been an enviable model for the rest of Latin America (economically) since. Given the endless war and turmoil that has permeated nearly all of the region in that time period, it is arguable (unless you are one of those people that says Chile is inherently different anyway because it has fewer native americans, and thus trained monkeys could have brought its genetically superior, class-endowed people where they are now, etc, etc Ja Ja) that it could have been much worse, especially since Pinochet adhered to the very Machiavellian precept of committing the worst atrocities altogether at the beginning, ensuring a more stable future.

As you may gather, I don't like Pinochet. I don't like what he did, and I like even less that the US decided that, of all times, was when it would be great to fuck around and create another false martyr in latin America.

But given how things turned out, and how much worse I perceive the chaos that Allende was leading the country to, he wasn't that bad. And considering the miserable shit storm the rest of the latin countries (for the most part) have been living since that time, it could have been a lot worse.

Perhaps it is because my view of history is not constrained by a need to superimpose a false binary of good and evil sides to be able to make a value judgement about which option was better. Not good, not great, not fan-fucking-tastic. Just better. Someone as intimately familiar with moral relativism as you likely are should be able to grasp this concept pretty quickly.

[Jason McCullough]

Did he call off elections? You know, hypothetically, if everyone was so pissed about it they could have voted him out.

I'm not sure how much of that economic chaos was domestically caused, either:


According to notes taken by CIA director Richard Helms at a 1970 meeting in the Oval Office, his orders were to "make the economy scream." It was widely reported that at the covert level the United States worked to destabilize Allende's Chile by funding opposition political groups and media and by encouraging a military coup d'état. The agency trained members of the fascist organization Patria y Libertad (PyL) in guerrilla warfare and bombing, and they were soon waging a campaign of arson. CIA also sponsored demonstrations and strikes, funded by ITT and other US corporations with Chilean holdings. CIA-linked media, including the country's largest newspaper, fanned the flames of crisis. While these United States actions contributed to the downfall of Allende, no one has established direct United States participation in the coup d'état and few would assign the United States the primary role in the destruction of that government.

If Allende was killing his political opponents or calling off elections, I'd favor the coup (though not by Pinochet, for god's sakes); but he didn't. "He's doing socialist stuff" isn't an acceptable justification to overthrow a democracy.

Particularly interesting bit (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm):


In August 1973, the rightist and centrist representatives in the Chamber of Deputies undermined the president's legitimacy by accusing him of systematically violating the constitution and by urging the armed forces to intervene. In early September, Allende was preparing to call for a rare national plebiscite to resolve the impasse between Popular Unity and the opposition. The military obviated that strategy by launching its attack on civilian authority on the morning of September 11. Just prior to the assault, the commanders in chief, headed by the newly appointed army commander, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, had purged officers sympathetic to the president or the constitution.

[Midnight Son]

Voting a bad leader out would never work in AMERICA.

[Anders Hallin]

Yes, but that was over a hundred and fifty years ago. They were trying to decide what to do with it now. They had no obligation to give back a large part of Hong Kong, and it was not conflicted territory anymore, so just keeping it would not be the same thing as invading a country.
Now, if this was 1839 I would certainly have opposed it, but, you know, it isn't.
That is precisely what I was getting at, rather than seeking to defend Thatcher all that much. Does this mean that should you be alive 150 years from now you would do an about-face on the Iraq question? I don't think Imperialism on behalf of democracy could have gotten to much of a worse start than the Opium Wars.
No, I would probably feel it was wrong to do it, but two wrongs very rarely make a right, so handing it back to some Baathist crackpot would likely not be on my agenda. I don't think the Opium wars were right, but I live now, so I have the luxury of not having to really care about that situation, I just have to care about what would be the best development now.
I see no reason to undo something just because it was wrong at the time. The question is if it would be positive now.

[Lizard_King]

I'm not sure how much of that economic chaos was domestically caused, either:

Well, when you have workers protesting against a socialist government, it is fair to infer that things are not working. 500% inflation? Again, a solid indicator. I suppose you blame Cuba's ailments on the US embargo (a stupid and ineffective policy, there, and a stupid and ineffective policy in Chile).


If Allende was killing his political opponents or calling off elections, I'd favor the coup (though not by Pinochet, for god's sakes); but he didn't. "He's doing socialist stuff" isn't an acceptable justification to overthrow a democracy.
Rioting and widespread violence, national strikes, and the like were all over the map. There was a vocal portion of Allende's own party that were Bolshevik-like in their demand for armed revolution. In retrospect, it is easy to say there was no danger of a violent communist takeover, but at the time it was no laughing matter.
I agree that waiting for the plebiscite, which at the very least would have brought moderation to the forefront, would have been the smart move. I continue to agree that Pinochet was a despicable character. But I still don't think he was worse than the possible alternatives, and where Chile is today (and the fact that it was able to get rid of Pinochet) make him the lesser of two evils. Why? Because right and left warfare in the rest of Latin America has been so ugly.

In that same vein, if Hugo Chavez were violently overthrown tomorrow, I would not shed a tear, even though he has much more popular support than Allende ever did. And the succeeding regime would be measured by me in contrast with the disasters the previous one was creating.

[Lizard_King]

No, I would probably feel it was wrong to do it, but two wrongs very rarely make a right, so handing it back to some Baathist crackpot would likely not be on my agenda. I don't think the Opium wars were right, but I live now, so I have the luxury of not having to really care about that situation, I just have to care about what would be the best development now.
I see no reason to undo something just because it was wrong at the time. The question is if it would be positive now.
An interesting perspective. I don't agree, but interesting nonetheless. Thanks for clarifying.

[Jason McCullough]

So the *possibility* of a violent revolution on the other side justifies starting your own? And how does the side in power revolt?

[quatoria]

So the *possibility* of a violent revolution on the other side justifies starting your own? And how does the side in power revolt?

I think what he's saying is that a violently revolutionary fascist who kills people who disagree is preferable to a democratically elected socialist who hurts the economy.

[Lizard_King]

I think what he's saying is that a violently revolutionary fascist who kills people who disagree is preferable to a democratically elected socialist who hurts the economy.

I'm glad we cleared that up. Of course, leftists only define economic damage as something serious when they are promoting their latest and greatest solution, but that's no big deal. After all, it's not like starvation and civil unrest ever killed anyone. It's not like socialists ever turned to violent repression when challenged. And it's not like the 100m dead from Communism were killed by anyone other than CIA operatives in black helicopters and trade embargoes.

I really think it gives people a different perspective on things when they are raised in places where law and order are par for the course. Oh well.

[Midnight Son]

"Paranoia: It's what's for dinner."

[Lizard_King]

"Paranoia: It's what's for dinner."

It's an integral part of any balanced internet forum. I think this thread has already surpassed the recommended daily serving, though.

[Midnight Son]

Well, we'll see you tomorrow then! :lol:

[Lizard_King]

Well, we'll see you tomorrow then! :lol:

Oh yeah? Well, um, I'm glue and...uh...
*another tragic burn victim stumbles away*

[Jason McCullough]

Starvation? What the hell are you talking about, Chile wasn't starving.

[Lizard_King]

Starvation? What the hell are you talking about, Chile wasn't starving.
Yet.

[XPav]

Starvation? What the hell are you talking about, Chile wasn't starving.
Yet.

American isn't starving.

Yet.

First they came for the Big Macs....

[Jason McCullough]

Starvation? What the hell are you talking about, Chile wasn't starving.
Yet.

So quatoria's summary was correct, I take it.

[Lizard_King]

So quatoria's summary was correct, I take it.

I guess you have to read things several times to understand them. Minus the creative ideological liberties, yes.