Pinochet DEAD
 

Looks as if Pinochet of Chile is DEAD, following a heart attack he suffered last week.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235745,00.html#

I hope he enjoys warm weather.

He's wishing someone would bring him a glass of ice water right about now.

Y'all are being kind of harsh - what's the beef with Pinochet?:munchin

Some 3,000 killed and 28,000 tortured.

My God frowns on that.

[Even if you had the foresight (or dumbluck in Pinochet's case) to turn economic policy over to free market technocrats, you don't get a Get Out of Hell Free card.]




De Oppresso Liber

Interesting. So you blame one man for all of that? He didn't ask to be dictator, you realize that right? And he also wasn't an absolute dictator.

After Allende, he had to be an improvement.

He held office till the country was ready to go democratic again, and then gave it back.

What is the most prosperous country in the Southern Cone, possibly in all of South America?

If he tortured and killed all of those people, he must have been very busy.:rolleyes:

TR

I didn't blame one man for all of that, as I wouldn't blame Milosevic for everything that went on during his watch. It still doesn't absolve Pinochet for his complicity in mass murder and torture. I wasn't aware that he didn't ask to be dictator but that didn't stop him from accepting the job.

I suppose you have proof of this mass murder as policy?

I have proof that mass murder was committed by his government while he was in charge. If he didn't know about it, then he turned a blind eye to the obvious.

Post a link. If you link to Wikipedia, I'll give you a new title...

This is the best I could do on short notice. The following was a CIA report to Congress detailing its involvement in Chile and the activities by the Pinochet government.


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20000919/01-06.htm

Not hard to improve on Allende, was it?

For 17 years, and then only reluctantly, after installing himself Senator for Life?

That doesn't give him a pass to murder and torture.

Right, and Hitler didn't pull the lever on the gas chambers and Stalin wasn't a gate guard at the Gulags, but that's not keeping them out of hell, either. What's your point? :rolleyes:

Those of you who are SF Candidates might want to study more and opine less. You are supposed to understand all aspects of UW - that includes the price of success. I challenge you to show me ANY totalitarian regime that secured it's position with less brutality than Pinochet. He was never accused of wholesale or indiscriminate slaughter. Making an omelet requires breaking eggs. The involuntary retirement of any government is a bloody business. Securing power afterwards is almost always worse. Success can only be measured from a historical perspective. The left has actively hated Pinochet since he ousted the Allende government and most of what the world "knows" about him has been shaped by a hostile press. A national leader is judged on the success or failure of his country. An open mind and a dispassionate examination of the big picture - Chile's "state of the nation" and the influence Pinochet had in realizing the current level of success puts his actions in a more sympathetic light. I'm not nominating him for sainthood and I'm certain innocent people were unjustly killed either by his orders/policies or at least on his watch with the complicity of his government. I'm also certain that a majority of the 3,000+ killed/disappeard and 28,000+ tortured ran afoul of the authorities for acts that could be construed as dangerous to the government/state. The usual penalty ANYWHERE for being an unsuccessful revolutionary is death. Sometimes they throw in the family, friends, neighbors, and even entire towns (Sadam) just to make sure the threat is eliminated. Politics are not black & white; the hard part is recognizing the "no go" line when you're stumbling around in the gray fog. Most government comes down to the choice of the lesser of available evils. (Keep an eye on Venezuela and Chavez to see what an unbridled Marxist is capable of.) I'm a pragmatist - sometimes a little evil prevents a much greater one. FWIW - Peregrino

I'm not an SF candidate. Regardless, I don't think finishing Robin Sage is a prerequisite for participating in a debate.



I'll judge someone on more than just the sucess in raising the GDP.


No, and this is an important point. The majority didn't pose a threat to Pinochet's totalitarian rule. There was little counter revolution. Most of those tortured and killed were leftists that were rounded up in the first days of his rule before any counter revolution could start. I never said Pinochet wasn't smart, just oppressive.

Yes, they do, and I don't support or apologize for those dictators either.

(And somehow I don't think telling St Peter "At least I didn't kill as many as Pol Pot" is going to help him any.)




Strange to mention Chavez, since, as of yet, his Marxism has kept the body count much lower in Venezuela. However, if Chavez was killing/torturing as Pinochet did, we would scream bloody murder, and rightly so. Being right wing doesn't give one a carte blanche to murder and opress a country for nearly two decades.

If one wants to defend Pinochet, he should just come out and say "Pinochet was a bastard, but he was our bastard" rather than pretending we give a damn about Chile's economy.

(It's a small irony that Pinochet knew little and cared less about fiscal and monetary policy, one of the few things we give him credit for. It's not as if he overthrew Allende in order to try out his cutting edge neoliberal ideas. The Chicago Boys came to him, and he was wise to let them run the economy, but let's give them the credit. Even they weren't such free marketeers as to privatized the copper industry.)

Pinochet was not our anything and we had nothing to do with getting rid of Allende or his suicide.

The coup was not about raising the Chilean GDP nor was that even the issue. Do you know what the issue was?

You seem to have a very strong opinion on the subject, are you well versed?

rubberneck,
I have seen that report. It shows no wrong doing by the CIA that I can find. And I have looked several times.

Now, were there excesses by the Pinochet regime? Surely. But I wouldn't be so quick to judge from the sidelines. How many of you critics were cognizant of events in Latin America during that time? How many of you can even begin to understand the fear of the Movimiento de 26 de Julio and what it represented in LATAM?
I find this very interesting. And wrong to a certain degree. And very simplistic. Pinochet was not king - he ruled at the leisure of the Chilean military. Many were not "leftists", they were communists. "counter revolution"? LOL. Very easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight....

If you want to blame someone for Pinochet, blame that idiot Allende.

Please PM me so your title can be changed to accurately reflect your status. Studying UW and revolutionary warfare is not/should not be limited to the "Q" Course. I agree Robin Sage is not a prerequisite to participate in a debate; however, it does expose you to the difficulties of "realpolitic". FWIW I spent enough time in Latin America during the 80s-90s to have an excellent grasp of the politics and culture of the entire region. Pinochet was an effective strongman in the Latin American tradition. Rounding up leftists (communists) in the early days of the coup probably did more than anything to consolidate and stabilize his regime. The court of public opinion in Chile is in session, the final outcome is in doubt. There are strong arguments on both sides. Personally I think the "greater good" argument is/will be a mitigating factor. The one thing I do know is that I'm not a Chilean; therefore I am not qualified nor do I have the right to judge/condemn Pinochet. I don't know his parentage either (though the record reflects his parents were married to each other) so I would hesitate to call him a bastard. Denigrating the fact that he allowed outside experts the latitude to fix Chile's economy is disingenuous. There are worse things than having the deaths of 3,000 opponents to a government on a leader's hands. In fact, I believe there are any number of far worse evils than Pinochet. Jimmy Carter never killed anyone. In fact he was a moral man who imposed his personal morality on the world from the bully pulpit of the American presidency. His naivete' and abandonment of the Shah and Somoza resulted in the overthrow of their respective governments. They weren't perfect either but they were infinitely better than what replaced them. I personally pray that he gets to answer for the butchery of every victim of the Ayatohla (and his heirs, that problem just keeps getting worse) and the Sandinistas. Peregrino

Hey, Leozinho and rubberneck:

You two seem to have very strong opinions on this subject.

Neither of you appear to be old enough to have lived as an adult through the period we are discussing, nor does your age indicate that you have served in Latin America, much less Chile during Pinochet's rule.

Since you have such strong opinions, have you ever lived in Chile or has a close family member who did?

I am curious as to where your opinions come from, and why you are so emotional about an event outside the US in a relatively minor country.

Incidentally, if we could find a strong former military leader to take over Iraq tomorrow for a 12 year term who would be pro-US and could guarantee pacification of the nation within a few days, but he would have to disappear 3,000 people to do it, would it be worth it or not?

TR

After reading some of the news reports it seems that there are both protests and parties going on in Chile. I wonder what will occur in the country now that he is dead. A side concern for me is that one of the subsidiaries of the company that I work for is in Coronel Chile. We manufacture a lot of machines that are shipped to Chile for their lumber industry. It will be interesting to see what the talk from our corporate heads will be like after the Monday production meeting.

Apparently, it would be better to fight for 12 years and have 30,000 KIA and 300K in collateral damage.

In your analogy, I would add in "and have a stabilizing effect on a neighboring country that was also in danger."

Their poli-sci profs probably told them the Domino Effect was a myth.

Based on the examples we were given by Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Sandinistas, et al back in the day, I'm sure many felt that was a small price to pay to avoid a purge.

I'm not sure how accurate this is:
but it sounds about right. Allende strayed off the constitutional page and that was the spark that ignited the coup. I don't believe Pinochet was one of the plotters, he had to be convinced. I also believe Allende was offered asylum and refused, preferring to take his own life. I believe he was mentally unstable at the end (if not before).

TR my feelings about the subject aren't as strong as you may think they are.

I am certainly open to the possibility that I might be wrong about Pinochet but then again I wouldn't want to stand in front of my maker with his resume in hand.

I would like to give some more thought your question on Iraq. My initial response would be yes as I think the real world consequences of failure in Iraq dwarf the consequences of failing in Chile. I don't think the two are remotely equal in terms of geopolitical importance.

I can't wait to watch this one....

Good. You will find that I am not a mindless drone who has to be right all the time. I have been wrong plenty of times in my life as I am sure there will be plenty of things in the future that I'll screw up.

I am man enough to accept that I don't have all the answers and will change my position if I am presented with information that shows me that I am wrong. If that is the case here I'll be glad to have learned something new or to have been exposed to a different point of view.

Ooooh! Touchy, touchy. Yesterday you seemed pretty sure he was in hell....

Something seems to be getting lost in translation. I am not touchy about the subject in any way, shape or form. I am being sincere about being open to learn and not being dogmatic. Do I still think Pinochet is in hell? Yes, but I approach that one from a theological perspective not a political one.

I'm just messing with you. I'm off today, bored and trying to avoid going to look at new furniture.

NDD-
Who has more power, Osama bin Mama or Pinochet? I'd guess the former, so you're going to look at furniture - have a great day!

You're not helping....

Just to stir the pot, exactly what theological perspective is that? Most religions that I know of that conceive of a heaven and hell also conceive of atonement. Does yours not? Or were you with Pinochet on his death bed or at least by his side these last few years and have personal knowledge that he never atoned for any of his sins?

By the way, I think it is a sin in Roman Catholicism to state that someone is in hell, because only God can look into a man's soul.

No, that didn't help, sorry. I was trying to escape Latin American political debate for the era 1960-1990. There are 3 types of communism involved - Soviet, Cuban, and Chinese. There are shades of grey in the Socialist camp, there is the dictatorial angle, the influence of the Monroe doctrine, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the growth of the drug trade, ore production (ferrous and non ferrous), timber, and agriculture - an amazing stew of conflicting economic, political, social and cultural elements. The region has been influenced by the intelligence communities of interested and disinterested parties - to unravel in a few paragraphs what has been a mess since Cortes, and only made worse by the resources needed by the industrial giants, is unthinkable. To even grasp a portion of the complexity takes years (and trust me, I'm no expert) and there are nuances that even experts can only hope to glean as outsiders.

Who are we to say who is the monster in this case - Allende, Pinochet, Rising Sun, Black Hand, the off shoots of the drug cartels, Big oil....? Pinochet kept the wholesale slaughter to a minimum, can that be said for other countries in Latin America? I'm still doing my research, it might take years. There is no quick answer. The study of political evolution in once-subject nations is sticky - even we had a revolution, a bloody and hard fought one - why do so many Americans forget this?

Being a Catholic myself, I can categorically state that it is in fact a sin to acknowledge that there are sins.

THIS JUST IN !!!!!!



Carry on.......

Allende wasn't a monster, he was an idealistic dumbass.

NDD - here's a song for Allende, couldn't find the music file, the sheet music cover will have to do

Attachment 6994

Yes, it would be worth it. I take it you are asking me this to make sure you are talking to a realist, which I consider myself, rather than making comparisons between Chile in 1973 and Iraq in 2006.

I lived in Chile for a couple of years in the late 90's but I don't claim to be a student of Chilean history. I tell you this because you asked and it explains my interest in the subject, not because I think my time there gives me any special insight that others on this board don't necessarily have. It doesn't. However, since I have apparently been dismissed as college boy regurgitating his professors' thoughts, I'll explain how I came to my view.

I was in Santiago during the time that Pinochet was arrested in London and later released. I supported Pinochet. For one, I thought his arrest set a dangerous precedent that would encourage rogue prosecutors to arrest leaders of sovereign countries. (Maybe it did. Kissinger can't travel freely for fear of arrest.)

But foremost, my support for Pinochet was for the same reasons many have said here. He deserved credit for putting in place the free market economic policies that led to the "Miracle of Chile." Furthermore, I would remind my contemporaries that we were too young really to understand the fear of communism at the time of the coup, and we all knew that Allende’s Socialism was disastrous for the country. I said you had to take the good with the bad, and that in this case the ends justified the means. Blah Blah. We did not know yet that Pinochet had hidden $28 million in bank accounts.

I knew, as everyone did, that most of the folks rounded up and tortured or killed in the days and months after the coup didn't posed a threat to Pinochet's government. They were labor leaders, writers, teachers that had been fingered as sympathetic to Allende, not subversives. The real power of the killings and disappearances was not eliminating those particular people, but striking fear in the population and letting any future dissidents know that exile was better than trying to mount a resistance movement. (That is, of course, state terrorism, but no one really used the term "terrorism" then.) None of that bothered me.

I met two or three folks that had been imprisoned under Pinochet. Drank with them at parties. I was unfazed. The whole thing had been so long ago. Besides, I had drank a whole lot more with rich cuico a**holes whose parents had prospered thanks to Pinochet.

After all, it was because of Pinochet that I came to Chile. I had studied international business and Spanish in school, so I was well aware of Chile the Latin American tiger. Foreign investment was flowing into Chile and it was often a US company's country of choice when first entering the Latin American market. All thanks to Pinochet. (Actually, all thanks to Milton Friedman and his acolytes, but you get my point.) For an American wanting to live and work in South America, Chile was the obvious choice. (It helped that Chile is an outdoor adventure paradise.) I went there not knowing a soul and without a single lead on a job. I stayed for a couple of years, traveled from one end of the country to the other, got bored and moved.

It's worth mentioning that the first Socialist president since Allende was elected while I was there. He wasn't a true socialist, and the sky defied expectations and didn't fall. US companies still pour into Chile.

That would have been the end of it, except later, I found myself thinking a bit about another authoritarian president, this one more of a dictator-in-waiting. He has erased some personal freedoms and taken steps to consolidate power, and he's a major thorn in the side of the US and I believe his economic policies will eventually prove disastrous. I have nothing but contempt for him. However, he's nowhere near Pinochet on the scale of oppression.

Thus, I came to see the hypocrisy in my political views. Should we look the other way when our allies' trample on basic human rights? I won't give Pinochet a free pass when he murdered in order to strengthen his rule, and then cry foul when an elected ruler dissolves congress to strengthen his hold on the country. Our country was founded on certain rights, those rights truly make life better, and when we can, we ought to encourage those rights and democracy in other countries. This would be where freeing the oppressed comes in.

I know that the Chilean coup was necessary and inevitable. It is the murders and torture, and 17 years of dictatorship and repression that followed that I object to. In Pinochet's case, the ends simply didn't justify his means.

I'm still a realist. I know, for example, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan shouldn't be democracies. If you think I'm not, then I will reframe a question that was asked of me. We might find that we are both realists, but some of us will go further before we draw the line.

So, do you consider yourself a moral relativist, rather than an absolutist?

TR

I'm not sure who your implying. Would you mind clarifying please?

Regards,
Aric

(edited to add: Taken care of via PM. Out.)

Pinochet DEAD
 

Just found this article on Pinochet --- perhaps it shows his actions in a “different light”, and perhaps some justification for his pre-emptive actions

SnT

James Whelan: Far from being an evil dictator, Pinochet rescued Chile
Contrary to conventional wisdom, former Chilean autocrat Augusto Pinochet averted civil war and saved millions from the destruction of socialism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2006
SIX months before Salvador Allende was overthrown on September 11, 1973, Volodia Teitelboim told an interviewer for the Communist Party daily newspaper in Santiago that if civil war were to come, then 500,000 to one million Chileans would die.
Teitelboim knew whereof he spoke. He was then the No.2 man in the Chilean Communist Party, the third largest in the Western world (after France and Italy), and a senior partner in Allende's Marxist-Leninist government.

The Communists were then planning to seize total power in the country, though they were not in as much a hurry to do so as the Socialists, the principal party in the Allende coalition and one passionately committed to revolutionary violence. So the Communists and the Socialists shared the same goal - ending once and for all the bourgeois democratic state - but differed on methods. Allende, a Socialist, was somewhere in between, wavering between his own bourgeois tastes and the totalitarian temptation

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...2-7583,00.html

:munchin

'Magine that