|
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
|