User talk:Marmaduque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --217.249.23.19 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its possible that edit was to support this undeletion request at wikinews — Wikinews:Wikinews:Deletion requests:#Francisco_Morales_Berm.C3.BAdez_suffers_a_fatal_stroke. Bawolff 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Fair Use Image on User Page 2 Image:Kosovo pisg logo.PNG 3 License tagging for Image:MarceloTrivelli.jpg 4 1973 Chilean Coup - sources. 5 Mr Putin 6 Various topics including Putin. 7 Quick reply - still no time to give proper answers or finish points from before. 8 Sources, pimary, secondary etc. 9 German WW2 guilt - supplemental 10 Discussion reply. 11 Suprisingly quick reply 12 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Radical.gif 13 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Renovacion.gif 14 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Udi.jpg 15 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ANI.gif 16 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Figueroa.jpg 17 American Role in WW2 - more from Mariya 18 Litvin(y)enko - since when a journalist? 19 1973 Chilean Coup sources

[edit] Fair Use Image on User Page

Unfortunately, fair use images are not allowed on user pages. Therefore, you must remove Image:Ariel Sharon.jpg from your user page. Thanks in advance; perhaps you can find another uncopyrighted image of Ariel Sharon to put on your user page. joturner 23:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kosovo pisg logo.PNG

Hello Marmaduque, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Kosovo pisg logo.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Marmaduque. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:MarceloTrivelli.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MarceloTrivelli.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1973 Chilean Coup - sources.

Hi. First let me apologise if I have misunderstood your sources.
It appears to me that you have based your edits on ONE source - a single feature/article in a newspaper. The best sources are peer-reviewed sources, such as professional publications from professional/academic organisations. "The Lancet" or "Nature" would normally fall into this category. A newspaper article does not. So what you appear to have is the published view of the owner/editor/reporter of the newspaper, selectively using evidence and interviews to support the narrative of the story. That is how newspapers work. To do an in depth investigation of a subject (perhaps a major court case or a PhD thesis) would require considerably greater time and resources than a newspaper would employ, and a typical reader would bother to read (that's why newspapers don't do it - they are commercial after all).
A conclusion reached by a newspaper is therefore not a definitive account of the facts, (see WP:RELY, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and would not be accepted as such by a court in almost any country in the world. The reported evidence of ONE witness(on which your strong assertion of your POV seems to rest) would similarly not be accepted by any court as definitive fact.
It is reasonable, therefore, to consider other views. I have quoted lots of other sources of an equal weight to yours (i.e. news outlets). These are therefore no more or less true than yours.
So I feel that more than just the views expressed in just your ONE source should be included (WP:NPOV).
That's my bit said, and hopefully supported. Perhaps you have lots more sources you are holding back?
Anyway, what do you think?
If your arguments are sufficiently convincing, I may even change my view
After all, South American history/politics is not one of the issues I am the most interested in, so I am not suited to holding an unshake=able partisan view on it.
Now, the role of Putin in Modern Russia - that's an arguement I could give you!
Love to hear from you
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Very much appreciated. Especially the Spanish translation - my Spanish is only about a dozen words - literally :-)
So to play the "Devil's Advocate":
a) the "witness" could be re-interviewed to see if his story remains the same. Is this what you mean by "corroborated". Not all witnesses are entirely candid in their interviews - especially as a newspaper interview is not under oath, and many witnesses are less than candid even under oath. The article you quote seems to contain contradictory statements from both Mr Meneses and Ms Bachelet, but that is no reason to dismiss one-half of their statements - the conditions under which the statements were made, and the mental and emotional state of the individuals at the time has not been mentioned. Certainly, some people are very modest about their own suffering, while others seem to suffer a "martyr complex" and exagerate even the slightest inconvenience;
b) "Corroboration" usually involves looking at a number of different sources - a variety of witnesses, forensic evidence, documentary evidence. This, for example, is why the Holocaust is said to have happened (despite the denials of certain individuals and cultural groups) - the huge number of witness statements, the documentary evidence (the Nazi's, on the whole, kept very good records), and the forensic evidence (remains of some of the camps still exist. I myself have visited Auschwitz in '92, and although parts of the Birkenau site have been "re-constructed" both the narrative and the physical evidence are overwhelming). In the case of Mr Bachelet / Mr Schnake / Mr Meneses there certainly does not seem to be a single version of events from the witnesses, even in the article from which you quote, and there is no record of any forensic/physical examination of the claims;
c) The expression "torture" mmeans different things to different people. Amnesty International has one view, Mr Bush seems to have another, I suspect the Saudi police have another, and Mr Stalin certaily had another. So what is torture? What about holding a suspect's head underwater until they nearly drown, then pulling them out and asking them questions. It was very popular with the Gestapo while interviewing French Resistance subjects. I believe some governments think it is a good idea today. What about beating the soles of the suspect's feel with cables/rods (very popular, I understand, in Saudi Arabia). Ms Bachelet in one interview, when asked about torture, replied "Nothing involving electricity". Which means what? That statement doesn't even preclude "Medieaval" torture methods.
d) The reporter seems to have seized on an open statement of Ms Bachelet, and implied it means she said she was not tortured -"'We were taken to Villa Grimaldi and then to Cuatro Álamos. My eyes were covered and I recieved punches'. She did not talk about torture". That statement does not mean she was not tortured. The question (apparently) wasn't put to her. She may have been, for example, playing down on that aspect so as to avoid openly portraying herself as a "martyr". The best ever quote I have heard from someone plaing down a situation was from a Belgian guy who was an SS volunteer during the war. Henri Metalmann, or something very similar. He ws interviewed on a TV documentary. He said "But when you are young, you don't notice such things" about his injuries he picked up (he was discharged following his injured, but kept revolunteering until they let him back in). The injury to which he was referring was when he lost an arm and an eye on the Eastern Front.
e) Just because Mr Bachelet's son died of a (natural) heart attacka at 54 did not mean he did (as implied in the article) - there are a number of risk factors for coronary infarction, including diet, exercise, alcohol, stress (including being tortured), excessive exertion (including being tortured), as well as family proclivity.

So what do you think. The only person who appears to ahve made a clear statement in the article is Mr Schnake, and the circumstances under which he made that statement are unclear, and the statement itself isn't quoted. As regards Bachelet mother and daughter, the suggestion that they were not tortured seems to be implied by a particular interpretation of several "open" statements.
Not much basis for "objective" truth, methinks.
So that's my bit, picking holes in your side
So what do you think?
And thanks again for discussing, not just "warring". And I'm Still ready for that Putin arguement when you are ;-)
Mariya - x -

Mariya Oktyabrskaya 11:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry for not replying. Been sorting out IT issues with the other computer for my spouse. Will get back to you soon.Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Putin

Just a quick bit to get us started.
So, you wonder why he is popular?
a) think about the last 150 years of Russian History and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Russia is not as easy a country as America (or Britain) to live in;
b) rising standards of living for many in Russia at the moment (all the oil money);
c) restoration of national pride (Russia is again becoming a powerful, influential, nation, after years of decline - every day Russia seems to get a little stronger, and the USA a little weaker)
d) restoration of the status of the Orthodox Church - Putin didn't start it, but he certainly hasn't opposed it - gets the religious vote
e) Mr Putin is certainly not an unattractive man - helps with the ladies vote
f) Mr Putin does not seem to suffer from the drinking problems or any particular infirmities that have affected some previous leaders - good for the "competence" vote
g) Mr Putin's background makes one think he knows "how the world really works" - more "competence" votes
h) Mr Putin does not seem to be particularly corrupt (tax evasion, is, as far as I can see, endemic, to a greater or lesser extent, in all strata of Russian Society)
To be honest, one could make some of these observations about the rise of Herr Hitler in 30's Germany.
So perhaps for many Russians "Democracy" is not their first concern.
So, what do you think?
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 23:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

So you do not understand Russia.
a) America is (and was) very rich and stable compared with Russia 10 years ago - Maslow understood such things; I can discuss this further if you like.
b) Putin's actions in Iran and Iraq keep the oil price high, which is a major driver for his economic reform program - oil money has allowed Putin to repay all Soviet debt (i.e. pre '91), and repay it early, too - saving a nice bit in interest payments! It is not always a good idea to think about things in the terms of global politics - sometimes the answer is smaller and closer to home;
b)1) The Iranian leader is also playing up to keep oil prices high - wins him Arab friends (as it pays for their economies - with the possible exception of Dubai). Rememeber he got in on program of welfare improvements for the poor, and he needs BIG money (i.e. oil money) to pay for it. Some Iranians may be ideologues, but if he doesn't deliver on the healthcare/welfare, he could very easily be voted out.
c) America's stupidity got it into the war in Iraq. Why should Mr Putin bail out Mr Bush? Every day the cost of the war (in both political and financial terms) makes America weaker, and Russia stronger. Why would Mr Putin want to stop America being weakened?
d) If America had really been interested in reducing world terrorism, perhaps they should have attacked Iran in the first place. No-one has come up with any credible evidence linking Iraq to terrorism, except that Saddam used to give a payment to the families of Palestinian terrorists who had blown themselves up.
e) America supported Saddam for quite a long time - lots of food aid (from America, protecting American farm jobs and votes) even after the facts about gassing the kurds were known. How come America suddenly has a conscience?
f) America was happy enough to meddle in Russian affairs in the past - the huge aid and weapons to terrorists in Afghanistan - bet there are quite a few Americans who now wish they had kept their noses out. Why is only America allowed to espouse something akin to the Monroe Doctrine? (That position was one of the major contributing factors to the Pacific War '41-'45) Why was Russia not allowed to influence countries in it's sphere of influence, as America felt (and still feels) it has a right to do so.
g) Hitler was elected on a platform of stability and reducing unemployment. Ordinary voters didn't "stand by and let it happen" - they voted for him. He sorted out unemployment too - that's what all that autobahn building was about. Restored national pride (after WW2, the Allies put much less stringent restrictions on Germany than they did after WW1 to avoid the problem). Hitler also got in at a time of massive economic turmoil, with one of it's primary factors being American Protectionism (it led to a world slump, which stuffed up Germany's weak economy). So in retrospect, it was American policies that indirectly resulted in Hitler's election. Just like it was America's policies that led to the rise of the Taleban. And America's policies that caused the Ayatollahs to take such an anti-American stance (America funded a coup in '53 to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran - now it's payback time!)
h) Some of Mr Putin's opponents, who have vast amounts of dubiously obtained money, think they can use that money to buy votes against Mr Putin - what is democratic about that? Surely the vote of one citizen should be much the same as the vote of another, rather than influence being based on money.
i) National pride has never lost a politcian votes. Mr Putin has gained entry to the G8. The Russian Army is re-equipping, the Russian Airforce has really great planes (Russia has been more advanced in this area for at least 70 years), and can afford to fly them! As I said national pride is always good for votes.
j) Perhaps people do care about democracy, but they vote for Putin, because compared with every leader they have had since Stalin, he is doing a good job. Also, there are very few viable alternative. The rich oil oligarchs are likely to further enrich themselves rather than the people generally (that was what they did when they got their hands on the state industries!). And there doesn't seem to be many other people who could do the job - Russia is, and always has been, a much harder country to govern than the USA - too big for a start!
So what do you think?
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick answer as I am not on my own system: a) "A true leader can bring Russia to richness and stability without quashing democracy, arresting and killing opponents, and threatening its neighbours." Nice words. Don't mean much in the real world. America has certainly done it's fair share of squashing democracies. Iran '53 would perhaps be a good place to start. So Russia has faults, but I see them as certainly no worse than the USA. Need I remind you of McCarthyism, and the applling regimes America has supported in Central and South America.

b) "Exacly. Putin cares more about money than about peace and freedom in the world. His actions are severely undermining efforts to end Iran's theocratic dictatorship. He is being extremely selfish.". Actually, Mr Putin was making sure that Russia does not default on its National Debt again - this happened in the late 1990's and the banks closed their doors and peoples savings (and incomes) had fallen in value by 75% (in dollar terms) due to the collapse of the Rouble against the dollar. Prudent Financila Management would be a better term. This hasn't happened in America for a cery long time, so it is hard for you to understand how people feel (unless perhaps you are familiar with Argentina) about losing their savings/incomes. I would again refer you to Maslow, as you have repeatedly failed to grasp this point. Or perhaps you feel Maslow was wrong, and you support another theory?
b)1) "I doubt Ahmadinezhad would be voted out, even if his presidency ends up as an economic disastrous. Serious questions have been reaised about his 2005 election and his "victory" was most likely due to electoral fraud. The Iranian ayatollahs can easily make sure he is "elected" again." Again, you seem to be unable to take more than a stereotypical view. Would you not agree that the Ayatollahs wish to remain in power, and they would be very foolish to back a hopeless acndidate, when there are plenty more "puppet" candidates available if required.
c) "I don't necessarily think Putin should bail the USA out of Iraq, but what Putin did was actively help Saddam Hussein's regime by selling him weapons which he later used against his own people. One can be against the Iraq War and be against Saddam Hussein at the same time." So you don't think that the USA has actively helped both Iraq and Iran when it suited the USA to do so, and that the USA was at one time rather keen on them keeping each other in check.
d) "Actually, Iraq was an avid supporter of anti-Israel and anti-USA terrorism. See this link. Besides, Saddam had detailed plans on nuclear bomb building. If the USA had invaded Iran, perhaps today we would be arguing about what to do about a nuclear-armed Iraq." Nice words, but Saddam was apparently "bigging it up" about nuclear weapons to impress the other arabs.
Additionally, the vast amjority of Moslems I know are anti-semitic, and anti-american as the americans support israel. Most of the moslems I know (mostly Pakistani/Kashmiri/Indian) think 911 was a justifiable act for the long-term support that america has given to israel, and they would generally like all jews to be deported, and the land made to some tyoe of palestinian-only palestinian state. they have suggested that if the USA like jews so much, they should make a jewish homeland in the USA. I try to remonstrate with them about the moral and historical case for jews in the middle east, but they either say that Israel is a symptom only of post-holocaust guilt, or they say that the westaern books just publish propoganda, and the jews chose to leave israel, and so have no right to return. I work with these people every day, and I have yet to meet a moslem who thinks that there should be a two-state solution. I have yet to meet a moslem who does not think that the Iraq war is American Colonialism. As for me, i think that the "hawks" in the White House convinced Bush and Cheney that the myth about American power is true (e.g. that the War of Independaence was won by a few plucky settlers, that WW2 was won by the Americans with the other Allies helping, etc.) This NATIONALIST foolishness led America into the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq. When America realises it cannot and has never been been able to win wars on it's own, it will perhaps start to respect the views of others, which at the moment it definitely does not. Also on the nuclear question is it not America's continued support of Pakistan and their attempts to cosy up to India (both of which have developed illicit nuclear weapons that has emboldened Iran (and formerly Iraq, Libya etc.) Why is it that America's "friends" can develop secret WMDs, while others can't? e) "While admittedly America did support Saddam back in the 1980s, Russian support was significantly greater. American aid ended almost completely after the 1987 Halabja massacre and there was no aid during the 1990s. Russia, particularly under Putin, kept on helping Saddam right up to 2003, and Saddam trusted that France and Russia would block any action against Iraq in the UN (which is why he was horribly unprepared for the attack)". I think you will find that as it was food aid it was classified as "Humanitarian Aid", and it continued, as far as I know, right through the oil for food program. It's primary purpose was to support american farmers, that's why the supplied food came from the uS, rather than, say, giving money to some UN body to supply food. Get's american votes while crashing foreign farming econmoies. Selfish, perhaps?
f) "Because at least America is promoting democracy and freedom (at least today), whilst Russia is definitely not and backs authoritarian Soviet-era dictators (Lukashenka for example). The aid to the Afghan mujahideen was not against Russia itself but against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan to back a crumbling and dictatorial communist régime. The Monroe Doctrine is a statement against colonialism in the Americas, which in my opinion is very positive. Russia could make its own such doctrine, but the problem is Russia today does NOT support the ideals of liberty that Monroe did." You know there was a lot more to the "Doctrine" than that. Perhaps you have confused it with the Monroe ACCORD? Of course, as I said, the USA was involved in the growth of the Taliban - so why do you think they turned against the US? Russia backs freindly governments in surrounding counties. America opposes non-friendly governments even now. Wasn't Mr Chavez more "democratically" elected than Mr Bush. Also nobody believes that America has had a "Road to damascus" moment, except perhaps some naive Americans - America has always used "democracy" to support its own objectives and has had no qualms about removing (and trying to remove) democratically elected goverments it didn't like.
g) Nevertheless, the German people did kow about Hitler's anti-Semitism and his extermination of the Jews. They stood by and let millions of Jews be killed. America has no responsibility over that. The Ayatoollahs in Iran and the Taleban in Afghanistan are oppressing their OWN people. America holds no responsibility over that. Why should innocent Iranians and Afghans pay America's alleged sins?
Under McCarthy, were america oppressing. Various of the Germans knew at various times. Your overgeneralisation againis simplistic. Saddam has always been anti-semitic (like most arabs), but the US used to support him. The Saudis are anti-semitic, but the US supports them. When the Germans voted for Hitler in the '30s, there were no "Death Camps". Certainly, some were very guilty, some were a bit guilty, and many share guilt for doing nothing. But not all. Naivety is not confined to Americans. It is easy to be retrospectively judgemental of the actions of the Germans, but not historically or morally correct. Many Americans turned a blind eye to many things, and I would like to remind you that Russia abolished slavery before the Southern states, and Britain was a leader in this area.
h) I also have a very negative opinion of most of Putin's opposition. That does not excuse Putin's actions.
People vote for the candidates available. The ancient greeks said that democracy results in the election of the popular rather than the good - that is perhaps the most telling critism of America.
i) Yes but national pride can lead to the extreme nationalism that allowed fascists and other dictators to get into power. Many american did not oppose Hitler, and wanted to stay out of the War. the US supported Saddam and various other dictators until it didn't suit them They still, for example support the Saudis. Amarican politics seemed to be based mostly on practicality rather than morality, as are the politics of many other nations.

j) Russia is to big, why not let a few of those republics go and follow their own destinies. Why not let the ex-Soviet republics choose their own destinies instead of being bullied by Russia? Sure, Putin is doing a good job with the economy, but his legacy will not be good. Russia's democracy has been completely undermined, there is no counterbalance to Putin's Unified Russia, and Iran has been emboldened to a dangerous degree.
The Russians would say that many of these areas form important buffers between Russia and its enemies. Also many areas have been historically invaded by people from the south who have no right to be there. Good idea if you read a bit more on Russian History. And that isn't actually what I meant by too big. Read the history.
Going back to the Chilean coup and the Bachelets, I think we should edit the article to add the conflicting statements by witnesses to General Bachelet's death, and also Michelle Bachelet's own contradictory statements regarding whether she was tortured. What do you think? Fine, as long as it reflects the majority view of "reputable"sources, not just that of one Chilean newspaper.
Mariya - x -

[edit] Various topics including Putin.

It's all become a bit fragmented.
I do not have time today to pick up on all our discussion threads.
So some today, some to follow.
a) Russians, Maslow and all that. Bit worse in Russia (and much worse in '30s Germany) than Chile was. The financial problems under Allende were made much worse by the Americans (nice heavy weight quotes by people such as Kissinger available)- interesting that you do not blame America for this.
a)1) Have you ever been poor ? (I have been "Western" poor, but not "Asian" poor) - many Russians have been a lot poorer than I ever have - re: Maslow again.
b) The primary player in WWII on the Allied side was the Russians. The Americans had it easy in the West because most of the decent German troops and equipment was in the East. Just one number for now: the Russians had an army of 6 million men for the assault on Germany in '45 (Clark, Barbarossa, 1964).That's not the size of the Russian Army, just those involved in the assault on Germany. Clark also says that in 1941, Russia had an Army of 2 million (that's "peacetime" remember, and 35 million reservist. It was the largest army in the world. Also had the largest airforce and more tanks than the rest of the world put together (all info, Clark, etc.). Bet there was quite a few Germans defending, don't you think? the biggest tank battle in history was at Kursk, where the Soviets lost about 2300 tanks (although about 1250 were repaired within a month) and they WON!! (figures Clark etc.). Think what it was like for the Germans. The Germans also considered the Americans the mentally weakest of the Allies - that's why their final counterattack in the West (Winter '44/'45) was aimed specificaly at the Americans - they were hoping one good victory would cause America to pull out of the War. Brtain declared war on Germany over agression in Poland in '39. America did not. Germany declared war on America following the Pearl Harbour Attack. I do not see the rationale that Americans accepted that Hitler was wrong. Germany declared war on America rather than the other way round.
b)1) The domination of Eastern Europe by Stalin after WWII was due to thre factors - the desire to never see a dangerous Germany again, the weakness of the American delegation at the Yalta talks, and Stalin's character. Not much mention of the second is ever made in America, I'm sure you will agree. Roosevelt accidentally traded the freedom of millions of East Europeans for the involvement of Russia in the Pacific War (Yep, America didn't even win that one on their own), Russia and Japan having, perhaps rather oddly, decided not to declare war on each other despite part of opposite groupings in WWII.
B)2) Roosevelt's weak negotiating stategies also led to one of the most infamous post-war incidents. Various Soviet dissidents who had fought with the Germans (most notably the Don Cossacks and General Vlasov) surrendered to the Americans. After the war ended these were returned to the clutches of Mr Stalin, who promptly shot the lot of them. The Americans knew this was going to happen, but they felt they had agreed it with Uncle Joe, and it had to be done - so the US was a partner to the execution of POW's. Methinks that is a War Crime. Of course, not much mention of it in the US. They like to pretend all is peace and light.
c) It is interesting that you suggest that Russia helps Iran in its attempts to get nuclear weapons. The basis of the Irananian program is generally held to be info from the Pakistanis (sold to Iran, Nth Korea, and Libya, in exchange for loads of money, which was needed for the Pakistani nuclear program. The Pakistanis got important info through Abdul Qadeer Khan stealing it from the Netherlands. So why is that the fault of the Russians?
d)The point about whether America is crushing others NOW - the people of Okinawa have asked the Americans to leave many times - the Americans have tried lots of bribery, have failed to change the views of the people, but refuse to go. Or do you beleive that territory conquered in war can be held forever? What about the people of Diego Garcia? Can they go home? The Americans "generously" let them visit ONCE recently. But when can they have their island back. Or is it now an American colony?
d)1) I am sure you have heard the expression "sins of the fathers". Even if America has actually changed, no other country believes it. Real Politic is what we have seen in the past, and we expect no different. Of course dirty politics has its uses - a religious man would say that God used Nixon (a pretty tarnished and maligned president, I am sure you will agree) to prevent Nuclear War from starting in the '70's, which lead to the talks between the USA and Russia, arms reductions, etc. etc.
e) Buffer states - pretty obvious I would of thought, if you had read the History of Russia. Additionally Chechnya attempted to aid the Germans WWII. Since America is holding onto Okinawa, it is strange that you think a similar policy is not acceptable. Dagestan seems to be an attempt by Chechen terrorists to destabilize the region to bring about extremist political ends (which certainly do not contain much democracy). Interestingly, some of the former Soviet Republics are now less democratic - so perhaps Russia should have held onto them ;)
f) The problem with places like Saudi is that you seem to have no understanding of them. Why do you think they are so keen to cosy up to the US?
f)1) That was the problem in Afghanistan. America interfered in a situation that it did not understand. Result - it got worse, nt better. The real irony for a democrat (political theory, rather than political party) is that the mujahadeen were LESS democratic than the Soviet Union, so American interference resulted in LESS domocracy, not more. Some mujahdeen support america now because America returned them to power, and if America leaves, they will lose it. That sounds like enlightened self interest, methinks, rather than freindship. Why do you think the taleban became prominent anyway? If America can't sort out the roots of that, then it will happen again, perhaps a differnt name, but the same thing.
g) Slavery. Hmm. still pretty widespread in the South at the time of the Civil War, methinks. Didn't the North also have a law which said that escaped Southern slaves had to be returned? (or did that go earlier). And to make it worse, American slavery was racial, while Russia was just still in the "serfdom" thing. Debate of Russian serfdom is one of the elements that is part of the claim of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina to be the greatest novel ever written.
h)You say that when Iran has nukes "we" cannot stop them. Well, that is exactly why the Iranians want nukes. They know that they can for the first time in 90-odd years ignore America. The real answer is to find a better way, else it will happen again - different country, same problem.
i) Pakistan - things have moved on since we started - what now for American idealism? Looks like a job for dirty politics again.
j) I don't remember you arguing against my statement that Russia has better military aircraft. Every American I have ever met has at least argued this before conceeding. So do you accept it? That for the last 70 years Russia has had better military aircraft?
k) Of course Plato thought that democracy was a bad idea.
I really enjoy these little chats. Thanks for the time you put in. Sorry I don't always have as much time in return
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit more, but not much time! More to come.
l)The main mode of operation of McCarthyism was PARALEGAL and psychological, so the number sent to prison is rather irrelevant. It was the "blacklists" that had the biggest effect, while of course making a fertile recriuting ground for America;s opponents. How can a country that says it believes in free speech say that a particular political view is illegal.
l)1)Of course, even if one was totally opposed to communism and the Soviet Union, McCarthyism didn't stop the big spies from selling important nuclear secrets. American laxness with its secrets is one of the main causes for nuclear proliferation - foreign spies and/or dissaffected Americans seem to like to spread the knowledge around. The Soviet Union, although it had a decent number of defectors, does not seem to have leaked nuclear secrets to all and sundry.
That's all for today. Time is short!
Mariya - x -
82.25.253.42 22:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. Alan Clark, the author mentioned above, was a professional historian, and later a politician. He was much later a minister in Mrs. Thatcher's government in the 1980's, so is hardly likely to paint an overly bright picture of the Soviet contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.253.42 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick reply - still no time to give proper answers or finish points from before.

a) Chile under Allende. Do you have any evidence (other than your POV) to support your feeling that the primary driver was Allende not America. I can of course come up with very damning "American" quotes - and as a much larger country (and at that time a "superpower") one would expect America to be able to cause such an effectif it so chose to do so. Are you suggesting that America did not wish to undermine Allende by bankrupting the Chilean economy, or that they did not have the power to do so?
a)1) Everyone has suffered economically. Thatcher was very bad for at least 10% of British people. In the US between 1977 and 1989 40% of all families ended up worse off ,after adjusting for inflation) (Charles Handy The Empty Raincoat, 1994, quoting figures from a 1992 report by the Congressional Budget Office). The point I was making was that if you read Maslow, he addresses this point. Maslow implies that democracy is a luxury to be enjoyed by those who can afford it.
b) Americans accepted that Hitler was wrong to declare war on them, and it became impossible for the isolationists to justify their position with the recent attack on Pearl Harbour. There is no guarantee that America ever would have declared war on Germany. Remember the Soviet Union and Japan (who had previously been involved in a territorial war, which Russia lost) managed to be part of opposing coalitions for most of the war, without being at war. Even the decisive Soviet victory won in 1939, which resulted in a lot of "elite" Japanese troops being kept in the Japanese islands throughout the Pacific War, was not part of an "official" war.
b)1) I am sure that General Slim and the British 14th Army would not be suprised that you do not know about them. After the war they called themselves the "Forgotten Army". Of course there were many others too. You seem to be unaware of the Russian influence I have mentioned above, as well. While I accept that America MAY have been the primary combatant in the Pacific War, to say that they won it almost singlehandedy is just ridiculous, and takes no account of the historical fact.
b)2) Stalin played Roosevelt like a fool. That's why the Soviets attacked Japan so late. When Stalin was good and ready. Grabbed back a chain of islands lost by the Russians in the 1905 war. Ended the War there and then. The Japanese knew that if they continued, most of Japan would have been occupied by the Soviets (they had the manpower in place, the Americans did not). That would have been the case with or without the 2 nuclear attacks. Of course, the Emperor could have surrended to just the nukes, without fear of the Russians. In a sense both are true, and perhaps the Emperor's decision was influenced by both. There is a nice bit in Wikipedia about it.
c) You are no doubt aware of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. How has Iran breached this. If your suggestion that the USA has given nuclear bomb technology to Israel is correct (and I am fairly sure this has never been officially accepted), the the USA has broken the treaty. What sanctions do you suggest should be brought against the USA for such a breach? Or is the USA just "selfish" in its international politics - it does what it likes and who cares about International Law?
d)1) Words that mean nothing. Advertising, it could be called. Bit like Coca-Cola says it is the "Real Thing". Nice slogan, but essentially meaningless. I am sure it says in the Bible - judge a man by his actions. That is what the world does to America - and the judgement is harsh. Before 911, I knew an American who kept teling me how all the world loves America. Changed her tune a bit now.
d)2) The Okinawans have repeatedly asked the Americans to leave. Why do they not do so? Are the Okinawans not to be trusted with their own decisions? Why would the Chinese occupy Okinawa? Perhaps you have confused it with Taiwan?
d)3) The British can't return Diego Garcia because it has been leased to the Americans. Our courts said they consequently have no jurisdiction. So it is the USA alone which is preventing the islanders return. One visit allowed in 30 years is not good enough. If the USA would like to modify its lease terms, then the British courts can rule on the position. To blame the British now (although they bear historical guilt) is disengenuous.
e) Why do you hate Lukashenka so much. A lot of Ukrainians voted on a religious basis - those in the West (Catholic) voted one way those in the East (Orthodox) voted the other. What is suprising about that.
e)1) Why does the USA have so many troops in Germany, and so many airbases in Britain. Exactly what are you protecting Europe from. Reagan said he won the Cold War by bankrupting the Soviet economy, so why are the troops still here. Virtual colonies, perhaps.
e)2) You appear to have looked at the map, rather than read the History of Russia. Then think again about the buffers. Who have been Russia's enemies?
e)3) Your example is not valid. Finland is not an Historic part of Russia, while Chechnya is. Additionally, Putin originally stood for election with a promise to stabilise Chechnya. He made no such promises about Finland. Putin is just fulfilling his electoral mandate over Chechnya. As you yourself pointed out, the USA fought border wars to stabilise its borders. Why do you deny Russia that same opportunity.
f) Are you sure? Do you know what a Wahabi is, and how it relates to other parts of Islam? That in itself is enough for some Muslims (particularly some Shias) to hate the USA, apart from all the other stuff
f)1) I seem to remember seeing on the news all the time that there is SOME freedom and limited democracy IN KABUL, but the rest of the country is basically run by warlords. The post-Soviet position was warlords as well. No democracy at all. Under the soviets, women had a near equal position in society (at least publically). That went when the Soviets left. All of the "mujahideen" did this, as far as I know. Your assessment of the rise of the Taleban forgets at least two factors. Stability and the views of the Pathans. I see no reason to believe that these issues are being addressed.
g) You have failed to understand Russian serfdom. What makes a slave a slave, and a non-slave (presumably a "free man") a free-man?Also Russian serfdom was based on class, rather than race, like US slavery. As Satre would have pointed out, class is a choice (perhaps somewhat involuntary in some circumstances), but race is "facticity".
h) America made the critical mistake of not only winning the Cold War, but also of humiliating the Soviets. They are now returning the compliment. The USA will attack, and Russia will laugh. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Overall result, Russia becomes stronger (oil price will go through the roof), and the USA will end up militarily, economically, and politically weakened. Stalin played Roosevelt like a fool, and now Putin is playing Bush like a fool. Brutal, but that's how it is. If only America had learned the lessons of history (those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat its mistakes - forget the author, some bloke about 100 years ago). America knew it after WW2, (overall, the rehabilitation of Germany could be held up as a model of state-building) but seems to have forgotten it since - would have come in handy in Iraq, too.
h)1) The USA humiliated Japan 3 times in the 100 years before WW2. Hmmm.
h)2) Why does America still have an outdated and stagnant two-party system. Germany has many more, and even Britain ("Mother of the Free") has three main parties plus some little ones.
i) Did the Americans support General Zia?
j) I didn't say all military equipment. Russian/Soviet ships and subs are only average.
But the planes. The Mig-8, although a trainer aircraft, was by far the most advanced aerodynamic plane of its time. Very odd-looking, but apparently very popular with pilots. The Russian experimented with Jet planes and Rocket planes during WW2 (the Americans did not. The Germans had both types, and the British had jets). When the Mig 15 came out, they shredded the American pilots in Korea (when flown by loaned Russian pilots - the North Koreans were rubbish). When the Mig 21 came out, the Americans gasped in horror. Same again for the Mig 25. Ditto Su 27, Ditto Mig 29. Ditto Su 37. America has nothing to match the (experimental) Su 47. it's the one with the backwards wings. oh, they don't do that in America. How quaint. Did I mention the Tu 144 "Concordski". Have the Americans flown any supersonic airliners? Which happen first - did an American fly from the US to the Soviet union before WW2, or was it a Soviet doing it the other way round. Which airforce had the first single-seat monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear? (i.e. the first "modern" fighter). Who invented the jet engine (apparently two people independantly - one was Frank Whittle, who was the other (although also Wikipedia lists a third, but Whittle thought he copied his work)? Who invented the Pugachev Cobra, and why was he able to do this when the Americans could not? Why did the unified (post-Soviet) Germany hang onto its ex-Soviet fighters for such a long time, when Western fighters were available? I could go on and on. The current American propoganda on the Stalin period is that the scientists had to be brilliant, or get shot, and for current aircraft that it doesn't matter that the Russian stuff is better (and far more manoeuvrable) as future air combat will be several miles apart with long-range Air-to-Air missiles. I am not sure that scientist can be forced to be brilliant, and the current excuse seems to be to explain why only the latest F-22 is even close to the Russian stuff. The Indian Airforce is currently re-equipping with new Mig-29s fitted (separately) with the latest Western European electronics (Italian, I believe) (they call it the Mig-30, although there is no official plane with that name). Didn't buy American, you note, despite their new friendliness with the USA. Wanted the best. Got the best. Not American
Tanks. The most produced tank of WW2 was the T-34. (It is also the 2nd most of all time, the top one is also Russian, T-55, I think.) Who had the best tank in 1941? What was the tank that is the basis of all modern tank design? I could go on and on
Infantry weapons. Best assault rifles of all time - AK47, been in use for over 60 years, and its smaller bullet cousin, the AK-74.
Anti-tank. Most folk think the Israelis have amongst the best current tanks. The terrorist in Lebanon shredded them. Demonstrates that the same would happen to US armour. It is thought that the Hezbollah anti-tank weapons leaked from Syria or Iran or both, but interestingly, not many seem to be used in Iraq, which would tend to suggest more the Syrians. You can guess who made them and sold them to the Syrians. The international arms trade is a dirty business, isn't it. The Syrians bought the best. Defeats all known tank armour. Even the "reactive" stuff. Oh dear.
k) Plato, I think was a bit more clever than you give him credit for. After all, America seems to "elect" some rubbish leaders (of course I remember all the "hanging chads" stuff - makes Britain look sophisticated). "Democracy" didn't seem to be able to cope with the question of perjury by a President either. And you still have not addressed the primary Greek criticism of democracy - it elects the popular rather than the good.
l) McCarthyism had the legacy of slanting history in the USA to minimize or omit the Soviet contribution to the War. Are you aware that after Kursk, Himmler started negotiating secretly for peace via the Swiss? (that's from Alan Clark's book, again) He evidently thought Kursk was the Big One too. On the day that Zhukov unleashed his counter-attack at Kursk, the western Powers had not yet landed a single soldier on the European mainland.- Davies Europe at War, 1996.
l)1) you also seem unaware of the Enigma decoding, in which America had no real part at all, except in very factually flawed Hollywood films.
l)2) Name any leak of Soviet nuclear secrets. The Americans executed at least a couple of people in America for leaking about the bomb. How do you think the Soviets and the British got nuclear bombs? ;) The Wikipedia piece on Nuclear espionage is one you might like to read.
m) I notice you did not comment on AQ Khan. The info he stole was about centrifuges, which is exactly what is being used to enrich uranium in Iran today. Why is that the fault of the Russians. Allegedly, the CIA knew what he was up to, but didn't stop him.

Take care, and I hope to hear from you soon
Mariya - x - (not on my system, again!)
82.25.252.219 (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, pimary, secondary etc.

It is interesting that you seem to prefer primary sources. These are always biased (see Epistemology for why). Also the context is as important as the words. Your source re: torture in Chile does not appear to have been cross examined about the quotes you rely on.
Comments
Mariya - x -
82.25.252.219 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit more:

Of course the question arises about how open access was to sports facilities for detained persons in the days following a coup. All the coups I have ever heard of didn't give people the chance to participate in sport. 24 hours lockdown broken up with "stiff" questioning is usually the order of the day. Did the military coup in Chile really allow political prisoners to engage in recreational activities so soon after the coup? What do you think? Who else played? Must be other participants, surely?
Mariya - x -
(I'll get back on my own set-up one day - I don't log in to other peoples for security reasons - my passwords are only on my system)
82.25.242.87 (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German WW2 guilt - supplemental

Apparently, Yad Vashem recognizes 427 Germans. Given the strict qualification requirements, it is almost certain that many more Germans knowingly risked their lives to save Jews from Hitler's henchmen. As I said before, not all Germans just stood by.
It's good to be back on my system!
Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My source (Davies, Europe at War, 2006) has 427, but Wikipedia has 443. So let's not quibble. 4 to 5 hundred.
But only 3 Americans.
Hmmm.
Even 1 Chilean gets a mention.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion reply.

a) Allende and Chile. You think that's big inflation, you should have seen Russia after it became "free" (and the rest of Eastern Europe that Roosevelt 'sold out'0. The US undoubtedly tried to conduct economic warfare against Chile (IMF was just one way). Did this have no effect? Also why does the US think that sanctions against countries like Iran or Sudan work, when you allege that US sanctions against Chile had no effect. have the laws of economics changed in the last 40 years?.
a)1) The US coup in Iran in '53 resulted in US companies owning part of the oil. It was the fee they charged the British (who 'owned' the oil) Is that not much the same thing?
a)2) Maslow, not 'Manslow'. His work is considered very influential (particularly in explaining human behaviour), and covers far more than my very short (and, perhaps, inaccurate) paraphrase. He did not say democracy is a luxury, but it is for those who can afford it (i.e. more 'basic' needs come first). Why not try a look at the Wikipedia page on him. Do I assume that you have never studied Business Science? (anyone with an MBA in the last 50 years has heard of Maslow!)
b) Pacific war. You could read the Wikipedia pages on General Slim and the Soviet-Japanese Border Wars, Operation August Storm, Borneo Campaign (1945). There is also the massive contribution by China, where a lot of Japanese troops were stationed. Just a taster from the Pacific War Wikipedia page :On February 3, 1945, the Soviet Union agreed with Roosevelt to enter the Pacific conflict. It promised to act 90 days after the war ended in Europe and did so exactly on schedule on August 9, by launching Operation August Storm. A battle-hardened, one million-strong Soviet force, transferred from Europe attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria and quickly defeated the Japanese Kantōgun (Kwantung Army group).
I guess 50 years of anti-Soviet propaganda in the USA is one of the on-going side-effects of McCarthyism that we have to live with.
c) What actual evidence do you have that Iran has started to build nuclear bombs - perhaps you had better send it to the IAEA as soon as possible! Iran's enrichment of Uranium is covered by the Non-Proloiferation Treaty, while releasing nuclear secrets to Israel is not. Have I misunderstood the treaty? You previously stated (I thought) that the US helped Israel get its alleged bomb. Did I misunderstand you, or have you changed your mind?
d)1) And yet are not the core of the political and legal systems of many countries in the world based on European, not American, models? And were not these systems transplanted around the world as part of colonialism? So is modern democracy in many (if not most) of the parts of the world not the direct result of European colonialism, rather than American slogans?
d)2) Is not your view of America's role not the 21st Century equivalent of The White Man's Burden?
d)3) Freudian Slip? You wrote: 'This island is, because of its geography, vulnerable to an American attack.' I agree, it is vulnerable to AMERICAN attack. The people actual on Okinawa have repeatedly asked for the Americans to close the base their. Why do the opinions of the Okinawans not matter? Are they not to be trusted with their own destinies? (shades of The White Man's Burden again)?
Essentially the same argument has been made by every colonial power for at least the last 500 years. Looks like America has as Empire after all.
d)4) The British Government does not usually try to publically embarass our 'special friend'. One of the payoffs is things like the information feed that the USA provided on the Argentinian forces during the Falklands Conflict (now that caused some South American countries to mutter about the Monroe Doctrine - helping colonialist retain their colonies - heaven forfend, whatever next). So when America wants to act, the British wll not stop the return of these islands. Britain does not maintain much of a strategic foreign presence anymore. The USA definitely does!
d)5) Oops. Ukraine, Belarus. Oops. I assumed you were critisizing the Ukrainian situation. Sorry. Belarus is just an embarassment. He wants to merge as equals with Russia. Hmmm. I think not.
e)1) How do Britain and Germany protect against the Arabs? I thought the Russians/Soviets were defeated by Reagan. That's what Reagan said, anyway, and far be it for me to say he lied.
e)2)Interesting. So America has colonised Mexico, despite the fact that they don't do such things. Hmmm.
Ottomans are only a very small part of the answer. What was their philosophy? Is anything similar around today? Who defends themselves against Russia. Who else has attacked Russia?
f)You are right about the fundamentalist sect. Why do they not have a general peace with the rest of Islam (particularly some Iranians). Hint: Articles of Faith. Bit more important than temporary alliances with infidels, perhaps. What is the history of the Wahabi sect?
f)1) I'm afraid you seem to have fallen into the basic trap of rejecting Maslow. It is interesting that you feel that the mainstream British media are spreading lies. On what do you base your opinions? Visited Afghanistan recently? (Me neither). Karzai's power is based on having support from a large tribe (Nato). When that tribe departs, what does he have? Words like "tyrrany of communism" are just slogans that have no meaning to people outside America. Ever read The German Ideology? Women in Afghanistan used to be able to et an education. Then the Americans interfered. surely the ability to get an education is a pre-requisite for "freedom and democracy"? Do you not think that women have the same rights as men? The Soviet Union was very advanced compared with backwards Western nations when it came to women's rights. Still is.
g) No I am not. Class mobility is an important factor. Else why not say everyone with a large mortgage and a modest mind is a slave - he has choice - the choice to do a rubbish job for long hours, or the choice to be poor. Been there, done that ;)
I mentioned Satre because he was very strong on choice - surely a basis for "freedom" and for "democracy". Race is "facticity" (Satre's word, not mine). American "slavery" was primarily racial rather than social or economic. Much worse, I am sure you will agree. Anyway, serfdom was abolished by order of the Czar before the end of the American Civil War. So the original point still stands - America had slavery after Russia.
h) Nazi Germany was not humiliated, that was the point. Many low to mid-level nazis were employed by the Americans to run the post-war administration. German courts fairly quickly had their powers restored, which they used by letting out war criminals convicted by the Americans, and passing short sentences on others. That is why it is an example. It is 'dirty politics' but it worked very well, don't you think? The humiliation of Germany after WW1 is seen by most historians as a critical cause of the European theatre of WW2. The Post-War (post-WW2) Allied leaders had the sense to see that. It is a pity that that lesson has not been applied more widely in the modern world. It is imortant to separate the words defeat and humiliation. The latter tends to build resentment and leads to problems in the future.
h)1) The 3 humiliations were why the Japanese (in their view) attacked Pearl Harbour. They felt that 70+ years of interfernce in their country was unacceptable. Death was preferably to humiliation for many Japanese throughout the Feudal and Military periods. Still very importance is business with the Japanese today. Humiliation is their greatest fear.
h)2) So you do not believe that democracies should evolve (as it has, for example, in Britain, where the "Workers" party have been in power for 10 years, but it used to be the free-traders (Liberal / Whig) vs the protectionists (Conservative / Tory). We also have the option of allowing for further new political trends (e.g. Green / eco-politics). Since you think 2 party-systems are ideal, why did the post-war administartions in Germany and Italy encourage multi-party politics. And are not the advances in Northern Ireland due to 4 party rather than 2 party politics? I can come with many, many other examples, of course.
j) Your reference puts the Russian tank in 8th
place, citing mainly quality of the crew as a factor. Do you not think it would rtae better if it had a western crew? Same tank, though. The T-34 was not the best tank in '41 (that was the KV). However it was the most produced in WW2. The basis for all modern tank design is the JS-2 (a development of the KV) (the man that the KV was named after had fallen out of favour, so the new models were called JS - you know why!).
k) Is not American democracy an elected "king" system. Even the spartans had that (two elected kings, though, in case one played up). I think good old British Constitutional Monarchy has many advantages over the American system. If democracy is just the best of several bad choices, why does America try to force a proven bad system on others, rather than search for a better alternative. The perjury problem and the problem of the populist over the worthwhile are still open if you want to comment.
l) America's contribution shortened the European War (both troops and aid to Britain and Russia). Britain's contribution (most notably Enigma, thought to have been worth 18 months) shortened the European War. The Soviet Union WON the European War, and would have done so anyway, with or without the other Allies, just in a longer time (perhaps 2 to 5 years extra, my POV). Himler's attempts, in Clark's view were more to do with covering his own a** than surrendering. Some sort of conditional arrangement - cede a bit here and there, problem goes away.
l)1) So you accept that the Soviets have not had any proven leaks, while the USA has had several?
l)2) So the Poles built the first digital computer and broke the U-boat code did they? You jest, methinks.
l)3) Anyway, nothing to do with the Russians then. Point made.

Other stuff.
sounds a bit speculative and half investigated to me. Still sounds a very irregular arrangement to hold (in your view) a known terrorist. Sources?
Has the newspaper/reporter ever published a story regarding the Allende period that was not hostile?
What are the political allegiences of the newspaper proprietor.
These are certainly valid questions as you feel able to dismiss Mr Lubbers because of what you feel are his political motives.
The wikipedia requirement is for "Papers of Record". Certainly many of the articles I quoted fall in to that category, and are therefore equally valid with yours, whatever you fel about the "quality" of the journalism. What say you?

Hume - truth comes from arguments between friends

Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suprisingly quick reply

On my own set-up too!
Just for once, I will try to stick to the layout of the previous discussion, rather than renumbering the sub-points each time (It was bad practice by me)
a) Sanctions. Persons such as Kissinger said that the US would bankrupt Chile by bringing economic pressure. How is this limited? Did Kissinger fail? The US has failed to bankrupt either Sudan or Iraq, so how can these be said to be more serious?
a)1) Same thing. Assets being moved by para-legal methods from one party to another. There is a real problem with historical overseas ownership of assets - colonization. Surely in Iraq in '53 assets were moved from one colonial power (the UK) to another (the US) which had just overturned a democratically elected government to install a 'puppet' regime (which subsequently spent its time brutalising its opponents). What is the difference between nationalisation of colonial assets and transfer from one colonial power to another? If anything nationalisation seems to have a higher 'Justice' factor - how can things that existed 1000's of years ago be owned by anyone, and especially by foreign powers who (in general) obtained them by force or duress.
a)2)Putin, Maslow and Temporary benign dictatorships. The Roman Republic had temporary benign dictatorships in times of crisis. I would suggest that their example demonstrates the correctness of Plato's arguments. I would argue that their is no such thing. I am suprised you support them at all. Pakistan would be a current example - on its 3rd dictatorship I believe. Mind you, Plato was very involved in the discussion about whether immoral means could be used to gain moral ends, or whether such an undertaking was always immoral.
a)2)i) Where Putin is different from say, Pakistan, is that Putin holds a democratic mandate for power.
ii)His latest policy is taking some of the oil money and investing it in european/western share markets and using the benefits to improve the pensions of the old people (who arguably suffered the most from the economic turmoil). The overseas pensions thing has been very successfully demonstrated by Norway. In the UK, Thatcher wasted the oil money pursuing her economic policies, so state pensions are paid for out of future taxation :( Anyway, Putin gets a very high popularity rating because he pursues populist policies.
iii)As the opposition seems mainly funded by a few big individuals, why should their economic influence carry more weight than the vote of a pensioner. Not much democracy in the power being disproportionately held by the rich (as in the USA).
iv)And, it must be said, Mr Putin does not seem to be lining his own pockets, like so many other leaders do.
a)3)Additionally, Russia is not as stable as you think. there are many competing forces. The leader of Russia has to walk the fine line between many dangers.
i)A military coup, which would seem unthinkable in Britain in the USA is not so in Russia (as recent history would suggest). Putin has recently spent a lot of oil money on the military, which goes down very well with the generals, and with military families. Not that long ago, the army was so poor that a large number of units were having to undertake farming activities just to feed the troops.
ii)If Putin is seen to be weak, that would encourage both the Army, and organised criminal gangs. It was not that long ogo that a Police Chief in the Russian Far East was burnt to death after his flat was firebombed by gansters involved in mass illegal fishing off the Eastern coast of Russia (unusual country, unusual crimes!). Bits like Chechnya may affect the weakness thing, but they make no difference at all to the next point.
iii) The size of Russia has always been a problem. 11 time zones. Even with Stalins "iron fist", in a country where trains take so long to get from the power base in Moscow to Vladivostok, it it impossible to rule by "dictat". Political Goal consensus is the only way. Stalin was backed up by a lot of others who gained from his position. The size of Russia is also its greatest strength - it was the size that defeated the various Muslim invasions of the last 1000 years as well as Napoleon and Hitler. (Basically, everyone ran out of food and fuel, long before Russia fell). The size can also be used to counter the weakness point. Roman Abramovitch is the governor of an Eastern province whether he wants to be or not. Masterly political manoeuvre.
iv) Various Russian exiles (eg Berezovsky) bleat on about democracy, but in the past have spent most of the time lining their own pockets and avoiding taxes. Why should they be given the opportunity to do so again. In addition to which, Berezovsky has publically called for Putin to be overthrown. Calling for the non-democratic removal of the government is a crime in Britain, and I would of thought the USA. I'm afraid that the popular foreign support of this man is widely seen in Russia (and not without good reason) as an example of foreign propaganda attempting to destabilize the country.
b) Russia would say that the reason its direct participation in the Pacific War was so brief was that it was so decisive. The hammer blow that deterred the Japanese from fighting to the death for every one of the Japanese islands (consequently saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers). Also, if the Soviet contribution was so marginal, why was it so important to Roosevelt? I would also remind you that Blucher only turned up at the end of Waterloo, but made all the difference. However, on the enemy killed/troops used basis that is often used to counter American propaganda about the European WW2, it would certainly be fair to say that the largest SINGLE contribution to the Pacific War was that of the USA.
c) I would suggest that the works you have referred to have not been "peer-reviewed". I would also like to remind you of the need for an exile to ingratiate himself with the country where he now stays, the desire of the exile to overthrow the regime in the land he has left, and the need (particularly in America) of the exile to make money in order to firstly get by in his new land and secondly to promote the cause of overthrowing the government from which he has fled. Defectors have always had to be treated with extreme caution, and tend to be promoted to justify the policies of a particular government.
d)1) Perhaps your statement should be changed to "America sees itself as the foremost defender of democracy and freedom since the Monroe Doctrine". Other nations do not share that opinion, as I have already mentioned. "America is a far freer society today than many European nations, and the mentality of Americans is far more supportive of freedom than the average European's" - now surely you must realise that that is patronizing, esp. to the French (the British don't really see themselves as European) and appears to fall into the new White Man's Burden trap with all the colonial implications it implies. And I am sure you are aware that the adversarial legal system you think so great came straight from the British! (in fact, it is one of the big reasons why some people in Britain are so opposed to closer integration with Europe - the author Frederick Forsysthe is a good example).
You rebel colonies do so like to think you have re-invented the wheel ;) Perhaps Chile's mistake was not being colonised by the British ;)
d)2) Neoconservatism is doomed to failure for the same reasons that colonialism was. Why do YOU think that America lost the Vietnam War? Additionally, as you have already stated, 'benign' dictators seem to get corrupted, so that they have to be removed anyway. Pehaps better not to support them in the first place. Reaction to neoconservative politics is one of the BIG reasons why Iran wants nukes - self determination is surely a "democratic" right of a nation-state.
d)3) To think that today that China is an expansionist military force is to underestimate the work of Nixon. That was his brilliance - tie in China to "goal consensus" (as business people would put it), and the threat of the Military is dramatically reduced. Nixon allowed China to benefit massively from trade with the USA, allowing many benefits for the rulers. It also allows the USA to cause serious economic damage to China (ONCE!). By tying their futures together, Nixon was responsible for the end of that part of the Cold War (and by undermining the relationship between China and the USSR, precipitated the end of the Soviet Union as the USSR felt the need to defend the Chinese/Russian border with increasing strength - by the 1980's far more troops and nukes were covering that border than the German border).
d)4) Very good. But the Monroe Doctrine has been used by others to justify any interference in any part of North and South America whenever it suits the USA (no doubt while claiming to promote "democracy and freedom"). I am sure you have read the criticisms of the Wikipedia page, saying both that America intervenes too much and not enough. The problem with giving things to the current occupants is that it uses time to legitimise theft (Cyprus post 1570 is a good example, as is Northern Ireland where a group of originally illegal invaders claim legitimacy just because they have held onto that thef for 400ish years. The colonisation of America and Austalia by Europeans could be said to be more of the same). You will note that in the case of the Falklands, Argentina is still determined to gain possession, but by more peaceful means (Another example would be Gibraltar). In fact, if colonisation is the settling of peoples rather than the exercise of control, surely all colonies belong to those who "stole" them. Does colonisation + genocide really eaqual possession (Armenians in Turkey would perhaps be a topical example)?
e) Fair comment. However, in a mirror to Monroe, Russia is quite justified in saying it is not the business of countries outside the region. e)1) Who are you protecting the British from? And the Germany have the best tank (according to your link). Are you sure it is not an expression of American military power to other, "hostile", nations? e)2) First point. So time legalises theft? See point d)4) above. Second point. Time for you to recheck the history of Chechnya.
f) Wahabis thinks other muslims are heretics. Other muslims think Wahabis are heretics. I could tell you why, but it will be more interesting for you to discover it for yourself. Most muslims think the wahabis are only muslims who have been misled by errors in their education. Most wahabis think that other muslims have only been misled by similar errors. But some Iranians think the Wahabis should be killed as heretics, and that it is their religious duty to do so. Tghe Wahabis are in a minority position, and although some might like to impose their views on the muslim world a a whole, they know they are not in a position to do so. The USA has walked right into a religious war most Ammericans do not even begin to understand. The Saudis are using the USA to protect themselves from the religious ire of the Iranians, as well as supporters generally of the Caliphate. Basically, it is the same reason why the desert Arabs fought against the Ottoman Turks during WW1 (the Ottomans having previously brutally suppressed the Wahabi sect as "heretical"). Some moslems, however, think that using infidels for protection is an even bigger sin that their (the Wahabis) original heresy. Of course, there are the usual petty disputes about land, money, oil, power, etc. overlaid on top of all this to make it more complex. Results are complex and strange, as we have all seen.
f)1) The point that the BBC makes is that outside Kabul, democracy has very little effect. Most areas are still apparently run by warlords. You still seem to have failed to understand why the Taleban came to run most of the country. Hitler did not come to power without popular support, and the Russian Revolution did not succeed without popular support. So why do you think brutality alone explains the situation here when it does not elsewhere. Womens right are interesting. Soviet Russia allowed freedoms to women that were not available in other countries at the time. Non-womens jobs became open. Israel and Russia still have the most integrated armed forces (Israel due to lack of manpower). The Nato forces in Afghanistan are still just seen as a Top Dog warlord force, and when they leave (most Americans are not prepared to stay for 100 years), normal politics will result. The people who have the backing of the local tribal leaders are fairly free, but its been like that for 500 years. Ironically the defeat of the Taleban actually increased Iran's strength (they hated them), as did the Iraq War (the old sunni-shia thing again).
g) The soviet system allowed many people from a poor background to become professionals, and some to move up a very long way, perhaps most notably Stalin, who apparently was the son of a serf and a bankrupt cobbler. There are, of course, many other examples. Many ex-slaves running the USA?
h) Of course England has almost managed a 1000 year Reich of its own;) Just 59 years to go.
Certainly West Germany was given the opportunity to unhumiliate itself shortly after - massive amounts of money, re-employment of mid- and low-level Nazis (who could alternatively organised a guerilla campaign, as it Iraq)./ early restoration of German courts (giving local meaning to "justice" although it seemed unsatisfactorary to the occupying powers). Life in Eastern Germany was certainly not worse than the period between 1919 and 1933 for most East Germans either. And the situation in Germany was no worse that anywhere else in the Soviet empire. The contrast with Iraq, is that it is one of the worst places to be in the American empire, much worse than before the war, and many low- and mid-level members of the former regime has been marginalised. A recipe for disaster, according to a lot of people.
h)1) I take it you have never done business with Japanese or Chinese companies?
h)2) Japan seems to change prime ministers all the time, and yet has the 2nd (or 3rd - depends how China is counted, or 4th - depends if the EU counts) largest economy in the world. Do not confuse fluid politics with bad politics.
k) The powers of the knig depend on the country in question, rather than being set. Time to look at the Spartans again, or the modern British. Queen Elizabeth is the monarch, but war is always declared by the Prime Minister (who is selected by Parliament from elected representatives), although discussion is current as to whether it should be declared by the Parliament as a whole. Anyway, the parliament of elected representatives should surely be supreme as they represent the views of the people in which democratic power surely should lie. Do you think that the electorate can't be trusted to vote properly? It is a problem that every parent encounters with their children, and ultimately the answer is surely to train them as best you can and then trust them to get it right. Do you not trust the american voter? Plus if the leader (i.e. Prime Minister) in Britain is rubbish, he can be removed on any day that Parliamnt sits, and replaced by the elected representatives with a better choice. Much better than having to put up with a bad president for a long time. Is their a Claifornia style "recall" mechanism for Bush? Also were not the Americans rather involved post-war with the establishment of the Italian political system, and is its defining purpose not to prevent strong leaders emerging? And where is the American workers party? That's part of the post-McCarthy legacy as well.
l) How exactly do you propose that Britain would have fallen. Even Churchill only feared that there would have to do some sort of deal with Hitler (no doubt involving ceding of some foreign colonies, reduction of the Royal Navy, free access in the Straights of Dover and Gibraltar for German warships, etc. etc.) You seem to have forgotten that the British were anglo-saxon, did not have historica land disputes with Germany, and Germany made many attempts at compromise (including the sending of Hess in '41). I am suprised you doubt that Russia could have won alone. The figure for the size of the army (2 million + 35 mil reservists) was even before wartime conscription. Additionally workers volunteer units were involved in city defences, and of course there was extensive partisan warfare. I can give you some good quotes from Clark (quoting germans) if you like. One of your former presidents (I don't remember which) says something similar on the website of his Presidential Library (or Foundation, sorry link not to hand). Plus with 20+ million dead the war was always going to be Pyrrhic for the Soviets. In fact the "easiness" of America's WW2 is one of the major reasons for its economic dominance in the post-war period.
l)2) the Poles, and the British Collossus work on the much more important strategic German communications. the Navy code was only broken after the British got their hands on a codebook. This effectively lead to the destruction of the U-boat menace. Could D-Day have happened if the U-boat code had not been broken?
l)3) The USA backed General Zia, who backed islamic terrorism in northern Pakistan. Gave him some popular support, especially amongst "Islamofascists" (your word). The problems with this are still evident today, and are cited by Mushareff as to why democracy can not be restored to Pakistan. Zia backed AQ Khan, who dramatically advanced their nuclear program. When Mrs Bhutto got in, she famously said "We shall have the bomb even if we must east dust for 1000 years". Bhutto advanced the bomb program, still with AQ Khan. So both America's "benign dictator" and the democratically elected leader worked towards the bomb. America supported them (as leaders), so I find it hard to understand why you think that America bears no responsibility for the bomb development.
Russia is not helping Iran to get nukes. Russia is humbling the USA, using Iran as a pawn. I have already covered this in previous discussions.

Other Matters. Has "El Mercurio" ever published an article favourable to "Socialism" and/or the "Allende regime". Criticising Pinochet is not the same thing. All leaders have flaws, and all serious newspapers criticize them from time to time. It is the positive stories that give the balance. In Britain there is a paper called the "Guardian" which many professionals think of as neutral, while others think it a paper for "bleeding-heart" liberals. There is a paper called the "Daily Telegraph", which some other professionals think is neutral, while others say it is 'right-wing' (it liked Pinochet). Of course, in Britain you can buy (although not many people actually do) the "Morning Star", a neo-communist paper. The readers of it no doubt think it avoid the lies of other papers and prints the truth (although it is not really considered a paper of record like the other two I have mentioned. There is also the "Times" (which became less neutral when it changed proprietor!) and the "Independent" (it was, for a bit, but now it is owned by a large Irish newspaper group). So that is 4 "papers of record" in Britain. Want me to check them all for Allende / Bachelet stories?. You can insist what you like about the "better relevance" of Chilean papers, but I would suggest you also read WP:POV
Definitely my last message this week
Mariya - x -
82.25.242.121 (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Radical.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Radical.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Renovacion.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Renovacion.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Udi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Udi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ANI.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:ANI.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Figueroa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Figueroa.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Role in WW2 - more from Mariya

Time. Time. Time. If only there was more. Anyway, Got a 1st class honours for my degree - I've been busy!

1) Relative roles in WW2. British casualties in the European theatre about 145,000. American casualties about the same. Soviet casualties 6 to 11 million (earlier estimates were at the lower end, but as more of the Soviet archives have become available, the figure has steadily been revised upwards - the 11 million figure is from a 2006 book). That's just military casualties. I believe that the entire US forces in WW2 peaked at about the 10 million figure. And the Soviet Civilian casualties are on top of that. Of course, America didn't have many civilian casualties, but Britain had some, and Russia had a lot. Stalin said 'Britain provided the time, Russia provided the blood'
1)a) I believe you will find that the primary player in terms of casualties and troops in the Pacific War was the Chinese Army. The Chinese were also expected to provide the bulk of the ground forces for the invasion of Japan.
2) Prospective treaty between Britain and Nazi Germany. Hitler did not want to "dominate Europe" as you suggest, but instead wanted to provide 'living room' for the German people. This meant recapturing 'historic' German lands. After the end of WW1, Poland ended up with a big chunk of Prussia (arguably the birthplace of the German nation-state, and certainly the birthplace of German militarism) and France ended up with some german-speaking border regions. I would remind you that it was the invasion of Poland that drew Britain into the War. Britain declared war on Germany, not vice-versa, remember.
2)a) After the fall of France, peace with Germany was discussed in the Cabinet War Rooms. The majority view was that peace should not be sought, but of those seeking peace, the majority view was that concessions similar to those I previously outlined would have to be made.
2)b) Hess's flight is mentioned in Speer's book Inside the Third Reich. The Hitler Book by Uhl and Eberle also covers this, and in greater depth.
2)c) Your speculative suggestion that Hitler would have broken any peace treaty does not fit the established facts - Hitler did not subsequently invade Vichy France, and "Hitler Directive 21" meant that even if he had wanted to break the treaty with France or any hypothetical treaty with Britain, he would not have had the resources to do so.
3) In the Summer of 1940 the Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over Britain. With the Royal Navy also still essentially intact, any invasion attempt would have been suicidal. How exactly did America help in the Summer of 1940?
3)a) By the time the Luftwaffe had deployed in any real strength a fighter capable of challenging the Spitfire (the superb FW190), Directive 21 was in full swing, so resources were not available for the invasion of Britain.
3)b) After the failure to achieve a 'knock-out' blow to the Soviet Union, the outcome of the European theatre was inevitable. The late intervention of the USA only served to shorten the war, and affect the amount of territories that the Soviets would subsequently control. You could perhaps argue that America saved Britain from a Soviet-dominated Europe, but that is not the same as claiming that America saved Britain from Germany.
3)c) The American provided certain foodstuffs that expanded and brought variety to Britain, perhaps most notably orange juice, powdered egg, and Spam. However, for an island with a moderate climate situated in a well stocked sea to need to be saved from less than a substantial blockade is hard to justify.
3)d) AFTER the War, America provided a very substantial loan at very preferential terms to Britain (which has only recently been repaid), which definitely aided post-war reconstruction and redevelopment...BUT, that is not the same as saving Britain from Nazi Germany. Wouldn't you agree?

So something to think about.
Take care
Mariya - x - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.255.32 (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Britain and the USA also fought a ground war against Nazi Germany. Britain in 1940 (France and Norway), Britain in 1941-1943, USA in 1943 (Desert War), Britain and USA, 1943-1945 (Sicily and Italy), Britain and USA, June 1944-May 1945 (France, and Western Europe).
I have included the Desert War because it is really part of the European campaign, and it was the USA's first land foray against Germany.
Of course there were lots of others too - Commonwealth soldiers, Poles, Free French etc. etc.
I put it to you (again) that the reason why so many Russians were killed, and so few Americans, was that the bulk of the German Army (and, crucially, it's best units/equipment) were deployed on the Eastern Front (Rommel was stripped of men and equipment, for example, to bolster the Russian Front, resulting in him being unable to mount effective counter attacks after late 1942 - before(!) America was there) and once Germany failed there, the outcome of the War was inevitable (the quote about Germany losing in January 1943 (after Kursk, which was by far the biggest tank battle of the entire War, on any front), BEFORE a single 'Allied' soldier landed in Europe seems to be relevant here). The German units that the Western Allies faced were, with a few exceptions (e.g. Monte Cassino, where the Germans paras were only underequipped, and withdrew undefeated after an extensive, costly (to the Western Allies), and unsuccessful seige), much less well trained and equipped, and were often recovering from a mauling on the Eastern Front
The Russians also strategically defeated the Germans by preventing access to oil supplies (despite the best efforts of the Chechens and others) at great loss to the Russians - no oil equals lose the War, and the Germans knew it.
Mariya- x -<br--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Litvin(y)enko - since when a journalist?

Hi.
I note on your user page you have the above mentioned down as a Journalist. How I laughed. A deception worthy of Stalin himself. To describe a former KGB/FSB colonel (later turned dissident and writer, according to his Wikipedia article) as a journalist is something of a mis-representation, don't you think? Bit like listing Hitler as a housepainter, or an Austrian Corporal, or a political prisoner (but at least Hitler apparently was all these)
Mariya - x - --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are getting there. With a chap like Litvin(y)enko, deception is all part of a day's work (remember his other jobs), so to have fooled folk into thinking he was a journalist is not suprising.
The thing is, people assume a journalist is trying to get to the truth, the facts, of a story (even if they are a bit selective and/or biased - re the Bachelet stuff - I am sure it is at least half-true or three-quarters true - it may even be entirely true, but that is not the consensus view).
This is not true of writers. They are much more free to push an unbalanced POV, and publish outright lies without it necessarily compromising their professional integrity. A historian would be expected to be at least mostly honest about History (see David Irving for an interpretation of how far mostly can be stretched), but an unspecified writer is free to say what he wanted, true or not.
Would not propagandists be able to be classified as writers?
The wikipedia entry also says he was at the time of his death a dissident. Perhaps you should mention this.
Of course, in my POV, to not mention that he was a former KGB/FSB colonel seems a bit dodgy as well. It changes the whole impression of the man. In my view correctly. And I am sure a lot of people think his death was connected with the time he was in the KGB/FSB, at least as much as anything he did as a dissident and writer.
It is, of course, YOUR wikipedia page, and you are free to put what you want up there. I just like to debate it a bit with you ;)
Hoping life is treating you well
Mariya- x - (signed in!!!-but you know it is always me from the things I say!)
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1973 Chilean Coup sources

Are we happy with the way it has turned out? Re: Bachelet death/torture etc. What say you? --Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While conservative is perhaps more correct (particularly in my POV), I suppose a WP:NPOV term would be 'major' or 'mainstream' or 'heavyweight'. Either would be fine by me.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 05:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)