Pinochet: savior of Chile or useless fascist?

[GhostWriter16]

Oh for crying out loud.... Why should they be our puppets?

 

[Dachs]

Because it's unlikely that we could incorporate the UK as territories wholesale?

 

[Traitorfish]

Because it's unlikely that we could incorporate the UK as territories wholesale?

Big Brother finds your lack of ambition disappointing.

 

[Dachs]

Big Brother finds your lack of ambition disappointing.

Ambition isn't lacking; ability is. I'm not in charge of the United States.

 

[Patroklos]

Not sure about that8230; many countries have some article in their Constitution that makes all international treaties and conventions binding and part of the Constituional system. Does the same apply in the US?

Indeed. It can make them law, but that doesn't make the subsequent violations of those laws unconstitutional. If it did, every speeding ticket you got on federal property would be a violation of the Constitution.

Like I said, we can discuss whether or not such actions violate laws of whatever flavor later. The question was whether it violated the Constitution. The Constitution places no limits on how the bodies entrusted with foreign policy exercise that policy.

Forma is about to show us all where it does though, revolutionizing Constitutional law and showing up every Constitutional scholar ever to have existed. It is a truly momentous day.

Was there a Constitution then?

Nope. But we would should certainly look back at that action as a gross violation of our ethics now, a shameful episode of colluding with monarchists.

In fact, pretty much every foreign entity the US had relations with up until the middle twentieth century is, according to Forma, a violation of our Constitution. By signing treaties of any sort with, trading with, fighting with, trading through or in any way interacting with any polity not in direct sync with the Constitutional perogatives we apply to ourselves we are compromising our morals and violating the Constitution.

I guess we need to close the border with Canada, it has a hereditary monarch as head of state. That's certainly not in line with our Constitution.

Similarly, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, and Greece will have to be cast to the wind for their state religions. To think we actually have a military alliance with some of these!!! DISGUSTING!

And lets not even start with all those barbarians practicing jus sanguinis instead of jus soli...

The ironic thing is that given Forma's opinion about colluding with such US Constitution shunning foreigners, he is displaying an astonishing attitude that would put even the most arch neo-conservatives to shame. I for one never anticipated such a hard core isolationism based on unbendable notions or American exceptionalism from him. Sort of jarring.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have treaties with dictatorships, just that its not a good idea.

And none of the nations you listed are dictatorships anyway.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I simply think that the deliberate overthrow of democratically-elected governments and the assassination of their leaders should be against the Constitution of the United States if it isn't already so. And based on the number of congressmen who thought Nixon should be impeached on those very grounds, they appear to agree with me.

Nixon and Kissenger admitted to CIA assassination attempt in Chile and the planned use of nuclear weapons in North Korea.

I don't think history will be kind to the far-right fanatics who nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation over and over again based on an irrational fear of socialism.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I never said anything about Chilie being a bad democracy.

But a good example: What do you consider better, a benevolent Monarch, or a Democratically Elected Muslim Radical who kills homosexuals and apostates.

There have been benevolent monarchs. That does not mean the system is good, but if that Monarch is doing good things (A rare thing in the modern world, more common years ago), it would be a much lesser evil then a country like Iran that has democracy, but where most people are Muslim radicals and so they slight everyone else.

Actually the democrat, as you can get rid of him, and usually, impeach and convict him for mass murder. But with the king, what if his son is a B'stard, then you're completely screwed, or if the king himself was just holding up a mask of goodness for public consumption, you'd never know.


Edit: @Dachs, wow what a horrible misreading of Call Me Dave, he's more in love of the "Special Relationship" than even TB was.

Dommy, it's not even close the difference between a democratic system, where the ruler is both temporary and removable, and any of the others where the ruler stays for as long as he lives. Why do you think the USSR went so bad so quickly when starting out with the best principles?

And finally do yourself a favour and read The Prince. It is a manual in despotascy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But not every Democracy is a Western one. You can have a Democracy yet not have the human rights we have, since Democracy merely means the Leadership is elected.

Do you deny that there have been benevolent Monarchs?

 

[Patroklos]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have treaties with dictatorships, just that its not a good idea.

Thats exactly what Forma said, that doing business with the Pinochet regime was against the US Constitution.

His later given reason? That regime was incomparable with our Constitutional values. That has LOTS of implications if your really believe in that basis for policy.

And none of the nations you listed are dictatorships anyway.

What does dictatorship have to do with anything. Forma's comment revolves around us associating with regimes that are not in line with our Constitutional values. Do you really think the US has not associated with dictatorships throughout our history? Are monarchs any different in principle? Are they still not in direct violation of our Constitutional principles?

I simply think that the deliberate overthrow of democratically-elected governments and the assassination of their leaders should be against the Constitution of the United States if it isn't already so.

Thats the question we are asking, if it IS ALREADY SO. Its not.

May we now assume that you have modified your position from it IS unconstitutional that you think it SHOULD be unconstitutional?

And based on the number of congressmen who thought Nixon should be impeached on those very grounds, they appear to agree with me.

Nixon and Kissenger admitted to CIA assassination attempt in Chile and the planned use of nuclear weapons in North Korea.

Please quote any of those Congressmen accusing Nixon of breaking the Constitution based on the (false) allegation that he participated in a coup attempt.

Impeachment has NOTHING to do with constitutionality of action as a matter of course. It could, but it doesn't have to. It could literally be based on anything, from improper personal behavior to criminal (/= unconstitutional) behavior to insanity. High crimes and misdemeanors is literally whatever Congress says it is.

I don't think history will be kind to the far-right fanatics who nearly brought the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation over and over again based on an irrational fear of socialism.

Please back this up. Every diplomatic scuffle with the USSR /= OMG THE HORSEMEN APROACHETH!!!

 

[Traitorfish]

Ambition isn't lacking; ability is. I'm not in charge of the United States.

Neither was Big Brother! Bootstraps, lad, bootstraps!

 

[GhostWriter16]

@Patroklos- Absolute Monarchs would be the same. Monarchs that are basically figureheads (Like Canada or the UK) are not.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

But not every Democracy is a Western one. You can have a Democracy yet not have the human rights we have, since Democracy merely means the Leadership is elected.

Do you deny that there have been benevolent Monarchs?

On democracy, the basic tennet is that power goes to the people, otherwise the Greeks wouldn't have taken the name from the words "Demos" (people) and "Kratia" (power). A bad President can be gotten rid of in any democracy. And democracies tend to liberalise social norms over time too, due to full participation of the populace.

And on monarchs, do you deny that the benevolent ones have been far outstripped in number by the malignant ones? It is not even a contest, even the best monarchs (excepting modern constitutional monarchs, as they live in democracies) you can think of have seriously grisly secrets hiding in their cupboards, e.g. Henry VIII with More, and his wives, Ludwig II of Bavaria was also pretty benevolent, and he bankrupted Bavaria with his castles, and I am running out of monarchs I can think of who could be called benevolent to at least some of their people. If Dachs could supply a few more I could probably dig up skeletons pretty easy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

[QUOTE
And on monarchs, do you deny that the benevolent ones have been far outstripped in number by the malignant ones? It is not even a contest, even the best monarchs (excepting modern constitutional monarchs, as they live in democracies)[/QUOTE]

Of course. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.''

However, there were benevolent Monarchs in history. If you don't believe me, ask King David in Israel...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thats exactly what Forma said, that doing business with the Pinochet regime was against the US Constitution.

Nope. Dom saw right through you obvious strawmen instead of addressing the real issues.

I think overthrowing a democratically-elected government should always be considered to be against the Constitution of the US, never mind international law. After all, Nixon was almost impeached, and should have been, for doing so.

Where does this statement, or any other that I have made, state or even insinuate that "doing business with the Pinochet regime was against the US Constitution"?

Do you deny that Nixon was almost impeached, and that one of the charges being considered was trying to overthrow the Chilean goverment? On what grounds if it wasn't either criminal or constitutional?

Don't you think that assassinating the leaders of a country and trying to overthrow their democratically elected-government should be construed to be acts of war by a free society? Where is the congressional approval required by the Constitution? Don't you think such approval should be required instead of giving the president such wide lattitude as we now do, and trying to impeach him after the fact when he clearly oversteps his bounds?

And you still haven't responded to this, other than to try to dismiss it when it is clearly germane to this topic:

I think it speaks volumes that you apparently think such acts, which go against every basic tenet which we ostensibly stand, should be not only be condoned but supported.

Do you or do you not condone or support these acts? Should they or should they not be legal for the president to do under any circumstances?

 

[amadeus]

And that third of total revenue is how much of the total value extracted?

Well, copper mining represents 14.4% of Chile's GDP, which would be about $22,913m. The Chilean government had income for 2008 was $34,900m. If Chile's government gets one third of its revenue from copper mining proceeds, that's about $11,600m. Adding those two numbers up means that about half goes (around 50.6%) to the government.

Chile GDP by sector
Chile's income for 2008

 

[Patroklos]

@Patroklos- Absolute Monarchs would be the same. Monarchs that are basically figureheads (Like Canada or the UK) are not.

Are constitutional monarchs any more compatible with the US Constitution than absolute ones? Would you be happy with a hereditary monarch as the head of state for the US?

Of course not, on both counts. The criteria given was simple, if it is against our Constitutional values it is unconstitutional, and it was then postulated that foreign policy should be beholden to those constitutional values.

 

[Silurian]

Are constitutional monarchs any more compatible with the US Constitution than absolute ones? Would you be happy with a hereditary monarch as the head of state for the US?

Of course not, on both counts. The criteria given was simple, if it is against our Constitutional values it is unconstitutional, and it was then postulated that foreign policy should be beholden to those constitutional values.

The US could ask to join the commonwealth if it wished
You can still have your President in this case.

 

[Patroklos]

Nope. Dom saw right through you obvious strawmen instead of addressing the real issues.

You know, you wouldn't be so bad if for once you actually dug your feet in and actually tried to defend what you are saying instead of retreating behind yet another improper use of the word "strawman" and explained yourself.

You might actually be right, but you never bother to debate. I will take the easy wins, but so many a good discussion goes to waste.

Where does this statement, or any other that I have made, state or even insinuate that "doing business with the Pinochet regime was against the US Constitution"?

You literally just quoted yourself doing just that above.

Your claim about foreign policy being unconstitutional (which you have yet to establish):

"I think overthrowing a democratically-elected government should always be considered to be against the Constitution of the US -Forma"

And you test to determine why:

"I think it speaks volumes that you apparently think such acts, which go against every basic tenet which we ostensibly stand, should be not only be condoned but supported. -Forma"

We can only assume that since you are using this test to determine constitutionality, you are using US Constitution to define those tenets.. At least I hope so, its the only thing that even approaches logic.

So why are you applying your test so selectively? If its unconstitutional to overthrow a democratically elected government because it " go[es] against every basic tenant for which we ostensibly stand," why is it okay to then support monarchies, an entity against every basic tenant for which we stand? Both are direct affronts against democracy, a mockery of our domestic Constitutional standards...

...assuming you ever establish a link between our Constitution and our foreign policy decisions. I assumed you were crafting a coherent position vice throwing random thoughts haphazardly onto the board. A polite gesture on my part.

Another quote:

"It looks like we need an amendment to the Constitution to state the obvious. That the federal government cannot be obvious hypocrites while apparently violating international law on numerous occasions. -Forma"

Here you reassert your position that it is "obvious" the Constitution already dictates foreign policy, and then you extrapolate that anything that is hypocritical in light of a constitutionally based foreign policy "cannot" be done.

It doesn't get any more clear than that. You explicitly stated the US should not do anything that would be hypocritical by your standards, CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS.

Now, all of us know there are no Constitutional standards to US foreign policy, it is a domestic document mentioning only who can participate in foreign relations. The fact that what you say is fantasy does not change the idea behind it.

Do you deny that Nixon was almost impeached, and that one of the charges being considered was trying to overthrow the Chilean goverment? On what grounds if it wasn't either criminal or constitutional?

Because he was an a-hole? That's literally all they need, unless you think Clinton getting head in the oval office was a breach of the Constitution as well?

You seem to think there is some link between impeachment and unconstitutional actions. There isn't. You certainly could be impeached for unconstitutional actions, but so far nobody has.

I am not the one who brought up the irrelevancy of Nixon's impeachment. Since you did though, I am curious as to who specifically accused Nixon of breaking the Constitution in regards to Chile. I am also curious as to why such an accusation means anything since he was obviously not impeached for unconstitutional actions.

Here is Richard Nixon's Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon#Presidency_.281969.E2.80.931974.29

It makes no mention of Chile at all, it certainly mentions nothing about Chile being at all important to possible impeachment let alone him breaking the Constitution.

You understand that Watergate had nothing to do with Constitutional violations, right?

Don't you think that assassinating the leaders of a country and trying to overthrow their democratically elected-government should be construed to be acts of war by a free society?

Sure, but its actually up to those free people in question. When did either happen in regards to Chile?

Where is the congressional approval required by the Constitution? Don't you think such approval should be required instead of giving the president such wide lattitude as we now do, and trying to impeach him after the fact when he clearly oversteps his bounds?

Not all aggressive foreign policy constitutes war. This is just something you are going to have to accept. Whether I "think" something should violate the Constitution is one thing, and something we are not discussing and thus irrelevant.

The question at hand: IS it a violation of the Constitution. You question above, I hope anyways, indicates that you accept that it is not.

And you still haven't responded to this, other than to try to dismiss it when it is clearly germane to this topic:

Do you or do you not condone or support these acts? Should they or should they not be legal for the president to do under any circumstances?

I did not respond to it because it was just a misdirect so you could avoid supporting your position, which I asked you about BEFORE you tried the quibble.

I may answer it afterward, even though it is irrelevant. But not if you can't even make a good faith effort to support your own accusation of unconstitutionality. You said it, support it.

 

[Takhisis]

Indeed. It can make them law, but that doesn't make the subsequent violations of those laws unconstitutional. If it did, every speeding ticket you got on federal property would be a violation of the Constitution.

Depends on the exact wording, because here every single treaty we subscribe to becomes part of the constitutional corpus until repealed by Congress.

Forma is about to show us all where it does though, revolutionizing Constitutional law and showing up every Constitutional scholar ever to have existed. It is a truly momentous day.

I don't think he's ever said that…

Similarly, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, and Greece will have to be cast to the wind for their state religions. To think we actually have a military alliance with some of these!!! DISGUSTING!

Stop whining, it expires after 20 turns.

Well, copper mining represents 14.4% of Chile's GDP, which would be about $22,913m. The Chilean government had income for 2008 was $34,900m. If Chile's government gets one third of its revenue from copper mining proceeds, that's about $11,600m. Adding those two numbers up means that about half goes (around 50.6%) to the government.

Chile GDP by sector
Chile's income for 2008

And the other half into private hands… not even as close as unequal as it's here on the other sid eof the Andes (government's charging the mining companies less than 10% currenlty ) but still not as much as could be done…