1) Of course it matters whether or not Slobodan Milosevic was democratically
elected. That he was democratically elected does not authorize his regime's human
rights abuses, of course.
2) Milosevic is routinely referred to as a "dictator" in press accounts of the war
in Yugoslavia.
Christopher Chase wrote:
> Matthew King wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 May 1999, Christopher Chase wrote:
> >
> > > So what's your point?
> >
> > That, contrary to what I keep reading in the mainstream media, Milosevic
> > is hardly more a "dictator" than is the head of any liberal democracy.
> >
>
> Who cares if he is a dictator or not? Eisenhower was certainly no dictator
> but during his regime the democratic capitalist regime of Guatemala, lead by
> President Arbenz was overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup. He, as well
> as the CIA, is repsonsible for that killing and he has its blood on its hands.
>
> In 1972, Pakistan invaded Bangladesh after B. decided, by democratic election,
> that
> it was no longer a Pakistani province. They killed over 2 million people, mostly
> just
> slaughtering civilians as they slept and hounded them as refugees into India.
> Pakistan
> was no dictatorship at the time.
>
> My point here is that your point is irrelevant. It does not matter one bit...not
> 1 BIT,
> whether he is democratically elected or not. He and his armed forces are
> directly responsible
> for the killing, rape and torture, and eviction of ---at the least--thousands
> upon thousands
> of people. Your point seems to be a non-starter.
>
> If I am incorrect, then please provide me with your argument that his democratic
>
> election makes a difference.
>
> -----
>
> Incidentally, I did a search on several news websites, including ABCNEWS.COM
> and MSNBC.COM for this rampant abuse of the term "dictator."
>
> I failed to find even one news or opinion article that used the words
> "dictator," and "Milosevic" in the same article at all. All the articles I
> could
> find call him either "President," "Yugoslav President," or simply
> "Slobodan Milosevic." This was true of even the opinion articles.
>
> I now also humbly ask that you produce your evidence of this terminological
> abuse you speak of. It certainly isn't above the mass media to do this...but
> I'm suspicious of your particular claim, given that I can't find even one
> article
> or record online to corroborate it.
>
> ---
> Christopher W. Chase
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
> Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
>
> (480) 965-7145
> christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
> http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Niles: Well, as some illustrious person once said,
> "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity."
>
> Frasier: You just made that up, didn't you?
>
> Niles: Yes, but I stand by it.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
elected. That he was democratically elected does not authorize his regime's human
rights abuses, of course.
2) Milosevic is routinely referred to as a "dictator" in press accounts of the war
in Yugoslavia.
Christopher Chase wrote:
> Matthew King wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 May 1999, Christopher Chase wrote:
> >
> > > So what's your point?
> >
> > That, contrary to what I keep reading in the mainstream media, Milosevic
> > is hardly more a "dictator" than is the head of any liberal democracy.
> >
>
> Who cares if he is a dictator or not? Eisenhower was certainly no dictator
> but during his regime the democratic capitalist regime of Guatemala, lead by
> President Arbenz was overthrown by a CIA sponsored coup. He, as well
> as the CIA, is repsonsible for that killing and he has its blood on its hands.
>
> In 1972, Pakistan invaded Bangladesh after B. decided, by democratic election,
> that
> it was no longer a Pakistani province. They killed over 2 million people, mostly
> just
> slaughtering civilians as they slept and hounded them as refugees into India.
> Pakistan
> was no dictatorship at the time.
>
> My point here is that your point is irrelevant. It does not matter one bit...not
> 1 BIT,
> whether he is democratically elected or not. He and his armed forces are
> directly responsible
> for the killing, rape and torture, and eviction of ---at the least--thousands
> upon thousands
> of people. Your point seems to be a non-starter.
>
> If I am incorrect, then please provide me with your argument that his democratic
>
> election makes a difference.
>
> -----
>
> Incidentally, I did a search on several news websites, including ABCNEWS.COM
> and MSNBC.COM for this rampant abuse of the term "dictator."
>
> I failed to find even one news or opinion article that used the words
> "dictator," and "Milosevic" in the same article at all. All the articles I
> could
> find call him either "President," "Yugoslav President," or simply
> "Slobodan Milosevic." This was true of even the opinion articles.
>
> I now also humbly ask that you produce your evidence of this terminological
> abuse you speak of. It certainly isn't above the mass media to do this...but
> I'm suspicious of your particular claim, given that I can't find even one
> article
> or record online to corroborate it.
>
> ---
> Christopher W. Chase
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> ECA 377 Department of Religious Studies
> Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
>
> (480) 965-7145
> christopher.chase@xxxxxxx
> http://www.public.asu.edu/~heresy
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Niles: Well, as some illustrious person once said,
> "Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity."
>
> Frasier: You just made that up, didn't you?
>
> Niles: Yes, but I stand by it.
>
> -----------------------------------------------