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.)