![]() |
Quote:
All animals are equals, but some animals are more equal than others. - Orwell |
Quote:
|
Quote:
TR |
Quote:
So I can't see that this person's comments are justification for 17 years of dictatorship? I'll say it again. It's not the coup that earned Pinochet the opprobrium, but rather his actions in the following 17 years. |
Allende was not unpopular with the masses until he had the land reform door slammed in his stupid face.
Che thought Chile was ripe and so did Fidel at one time. That's why he sent Che to Bolivia instead. |
Quote:
While some here might dispute Leo’s opinion concerning the thousands of “broken eggs” during Pinochet’s reign, he does possess actual firsthand experience in the region that deserves not to be ignored. Has anyone else here spoken with a Chilean in Santiago regarding Pinochet’s effect upon their life; good or bad? I believe that both Leozinho’s comments & opinions deserve to be weighed with the respect due to an individual with actual (and long long-term) experience in Chile. An intellectual debate is one thing; but a dogpile is another…. Travis |
Quote:
Travis |
It's Christmas, take a break. There'll be time enough for dead Latin dictators tomorrow.
|
Quote:
|
Edit
|
Quote:
I guess my creds are also being called to question, so here goes.... Yes, I have worked in Chile off and on from 1991 through 2001. I have dealt with the government there, the military, and with Chileans both in and out of Chile from a number of different social strata. I wrote an area study of Chile in 1984 which exceeded 100 pages, during one of the more interesting periods of their history. I have never lived there as a resident and I am not a Chilean. OTOH, I have regularly worked there, know the people, am a Latin American specialist with many years in theater, and am trained to do critical analysis and cultural relations. Hopefully, that meets your requirements for the ability to participate in an informed discussion on Pinochet and Chile. Quote:
Stalin said that a single death is a tragedy, and a million but a statistic. Is that your belief as well? Is the wrongful killing of a single individual equally as reprehensible as the actions of a mass murderer of 100, or a genocidal maniac killing one million? Are you a moral absolutist as well? Are there no shades of grey? Is a soldier who mistakenly kills a civilian, or wrongfully kills an enemy soldier equally as bad as Hitler? How many people do you think have needlessly died in the socialist worker's paradise of Cuba over the past half century? Who do you think is responsible for that? Would the removal of Castro, had it cost one life less than he has taken have been unjustified? Should we have stayed out of Kuwait in 1991 as well? They had not attacked us and were no military threat to us. We killed a lot of Iraqis (and some Kuwaitis as well) in the process, probably many needlessly. Why declare war on the Germans in 1941? They had not directly attacked the US. Look at the lives that cost. Was the bombing of civlian targets in Germany necessary? After seeing what took place in Auschwitz and the other camps, would that opinion be changed? Why not just let the Confederacy secede from the United States? More Americans died in the subsequent war than in any war in US history. Most of the Northern states had no slaves to free. Good riddance. Why should Lincoln sacrifice the blood and treasure of the United States (as well as many basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution) to force a group of states to involuntarily remain part of a free association? If they were part of the United States, should forcible military occupation, suspension of their American citizens' Constitutional rights, and denial of representation by their elected officials have been legal? Necessary? Permitted? Is it right to move preemptively, or to take a few lives for the greater good of the nation (or the world), or to save many more later? Who can make that call? The World Court? The UN? The MSM? I also find it curious that you seem to be proposing that one must be a Chilean to properly evaluate Pinochet, and yet are willing to make moral judgements of a Chilean (Pinochet) without being one. Curious. TR |
EX-Gold Falcon,
Read Leozinho's post you quoted again. Here are some examples of indicators: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I haven't seen anyone claim expertise in Chilean history either, but I can assure you that several of us have spent decades studying communism, insurgency and politics in Latin America - of which the Pinochet-Allende era was a significant factor. The second statement quoted above regarding "labor leaders, writers and teachers" is indicative of a lack of understanding of communist insurgent trends and strategies in Latin America. If he had included Liberation Theology and The Church and agrarian reform, he would have had the complete list. How could he (Leozinho) possibly know they didn't pose a threat to Pinochet's government or the stability of Chile or even the region? Those are the precisely the groups that have historically posed those very threats throughout Latin America. Abimael Guzman was a teacher, Camilo Torres Restrepo was a teacher and writer and very active in labor. Want more examples? But even more than this specific topic, the debate is an attempt to show a young QP just starting out to think for himself and not assume. To take the measure of the man as a whole in the context of the times and the issues he faced - not to label him as "evil" because it is the popular thing to do. To see both sides of the story. Now, let's jump to the future. The ME is resolved, alternative fuel is a reality. The greatest issue to US national security is illegal Latin immigration. Leozinho is sent with his A-Team to Chile to help the Chilean military suppress yet another communist insurgency in that country. The difference is, this time, the memory of Pinochet has faded and the wounds healed enough that he is now recognized as a Heroe de la Patria. Why? Because this time, the communists actually managed to take over and the purge that followed made Pinochet's regime seem benevolent by comparison. The People saw how bad it could have been. Leozinho, because he previously lived there, has been tasked to lead the rapport-building effort. Because of his preconceived notions regarding Pinochet, he is able to establish rapport with the sons and daughters of domestic employees and academics, but not with the sons of the military from Pinochet's time, who are now leading the effort to stabilize the Southern Cone. All because he drank with a couple of people at parties? It is very easy to criticize the actions and decisions of leaders with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight. It is more difficult to take those actions and make those decisions at the moment, with your country under immediate threat, with only the information knowable at the time. Learn the difference between a debate with an object lesson and a dogpile. We don't dogpile here, there's no need. If you or Leozinho or both of you wish to change positions in the debate, we can do that as well... |
Oh yeah, one other thing. While we all know communism is a failed system, somebody needs to explain that fact to the writers, teachers and labor leaders in Latin America. They are still advocating young people take to the hills in its name...It matters little the beliefs of the True Believer, it matters that he believes - truly.
|
Let's say that only 1% of the Chilean population believe that Pinochet was justified in his actions. What segment of Chilean society would likely constitute that 1%?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:42. |
Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®