Hitler and Stalin (Leftist/Marxist Tyrants) had to be violently opposed.
Today, most of us take for granted that the world has lagely been "saved from Marxism" because of people willing to react violently to that terroristic pathology.
Pinochet & Sukarno reacted violently to Marxists in their respective countries, just as the U.S. did - we fire-bombed Dresden (a University City in Germany) killing more people there than in Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined...such things are not "war crimes," whn committed against tyrannical regimes.
JMK,
Hitler was not a marxist and you should know it by now. He hated communists and he was killing them. Stalin was. Pinochet was a fascist dictator that killed people who believed in democracy. Allende was democratically elected. Pinochet was as much of a criminal and monster, as Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
You have the right to support fascism if you wish. We live in a democracy. Just realize that when you praise a mass murderer like Pinochet you openly support fascism and you are against democracy.
Well, you're wrong about Hitler, BW and though I'm certain I've gone over this before, I'll prove once again that Hitler was indeed a Left-wing tyrant. A National Socialist, with strong emphasis on "socialist."
Again, I point to one of Hitler's most vile and reprehensible speeches, one that echos everything that any good Marxist would espouse, "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
That despicable tirade about Capitalism's "unfair salaries" and its "exploitation of the economically weak" sounds exactly like Stalin, and exactly like Chavez (today...that is the embodiment of "economic terrorism."
The greatest good is to destroy evil and all Communism, all socialism is evil. There is no way one can embrace the sentiments of Marx, or Stalin and Hitler without deliberately and knowingly embracing that evil.
Given that as truth, then anything or anyone that stands against Communism/Socialism is GOOD, in as much as "the greatest good is to destroy evil."
When terrorists target civilians they are guilty of murder, but when a government, even a tyrannical one, targets Communists/Socialists (economic terrorists) THAT is not murder at all, it's merely self-preservation.
"but when a government, even a tyrannical one, targets Communists/Socialists (economic terrorists) THAT is not murder at all, it's merely self-preservation.
Sorry, but what you say makes no sense. You are essentially supporting fascism. Democracy is for freedom of sppech and expression no matter whether you are right or left. You apparently do not believe in democracy. As I said, it is your right to hate democracy and support fascism, but it is not cool at all 
You're right, like all of America's Founders I revile democracy, best described by Ben Franklin as "Five wolves and one sheep deciding on what's for dinner."
And like the great Milton Friedman, while I support political freedom (freedom of speech, though not for terroristic, libelous, reckless and threatening speech)...I understand and acknowledge that economic freedom (open markets) is far more important and vital to a nation.
And, for your information, the U.S. like all of Western Europe, has an "Interventionist" or "Corporatist" economy - private ownership, coupled with heavy-handed government regulation and a welfare state.
The U.S. has that, Sweden has that, Great Brittain, etc, we only differ as to the degree of that intervention or regulation.
And for the record Corporatism = Fascism, and yes, Corporatism CAN work, as it now does in the U.S. and Western Europe.
It is not at all optimal (the Free Market is), but unlike Socialism (which is ALWAYS unworkable and cannot be instituted without accompanying mass murder), it CAN work and deliver varying degrees of prosperity.
In other words you support fascism?
As much as modern day Sweden and modern day America are "fascist/Corporatist," yes.
I like our current economy. Low inflation, low unemployment, low interest rates, rising personal income, strong GDP growth, relatively low taxes AND a Dow over 12,000!
I would prefer a much more Free Market and a much less interventionist government.
I would strongly and very possibly violently oppose any form of Socialism (state control/management of commerce & industry and the eradication of private property).
France is only slightly more interventionist and redistributionist than the U.S. is and the results there have been disastrous - double digit unemployment and anemic GDP growth.
Given that pure/real socialism DOESN'T work, I presume you'd also prefer a much more free market, since prefering an even more interventionist and redistributionist economic model (like France's) doesn't make any sense....does it?
In that regard, Milton Friedman (Pinochet's economic czar), moved Pinochet's Chile toward that free market economy we both seem to desire.
You may not like Pinochet's handling of those economic terrorists in his midsts, but you must admire his adherance to economic freedom. He trusted Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" and mated his authoritarian regime with the free market - prserving the foundation of all freedom, in the process.
As incongruous as the mating of an authoritarian regime with free market Capitalism was, in Chile, it worked!
Chile became the model economy for all of South America under Dr Friedman's watch.
"but you must admire his adherance to economic freedom.
No I dont. I admire nothing that fascist mass murderers like Pinochet do, even when it works. Pinochet was a criminal that killed thousands and anyone who supported him then (including Friedman and Kissinger then) should be ashamed of themselves.
It is difficult to understand how evil dictators like Pinochet still have supporters. Pinochet was at least as murderous as Saddam Hussein, if not worse. Anyone who supports rulers like those hates democracy.
"Anyone who supports rulers like those hates democracy.
Well said.
> Pinochet was at least as murderous as Saddam Hussein, if not worse.
Not even close. Pinochet was responsible for the deaths of around 3,000 people. Saddam killed ten times that many in the 1991 Shia uprising along.
I'm glad you don't approve of Pinochet, but please do get your facts straight.
"Along" should be "alone," of course.
Both Pinochet and Saddam were horrible dictators. They were both equally evil and bloody. And they were both supported by republican administrations.
Pinochet was under attack by outside forces, mostly Communist, almost all Soviet-backed, ergo America's support, during that era, for the Pinochet regime.
I fully understand that there are naive people who don't believe Communists/Socialists are "economic terrorists, but they're wrong.
If an Arab ruler, today slaughtered 3,000 or 5,000 0r 50,000 jihadist terrorists, I doubt there'd be much condemnation coming from the U.S.
Pinochet merely targeted a different type of terrorist, but an equivalent evil.
I showed you the innate evil of socialism with Hiter's quote above. That was what Pinochet was up against.
"They were both equally evil and bloody. And they were both supported by republican administrations." (BW)
<
<
Wrong on both counts.
They are NOT "equally bloody," as Saddam killed over a half million people, while Pinochet is charged with killing around 3,000 terrorists.
Pinochet's regime was supported by THREE American administrations - Nixon's, Carter's and Reagan's.
Carter back-stabbed the Shah of Iran. It was Bush Sr's administration that kicked the legs from under Pinochet, Noriega and Saddam.
I know you'd like to assess things as simply, " Democrats = good, Republicans = bad," but those pesky facts keep on getting in the way.
Carter's administration supported Pinochet AND Saddam was "far more "bloody" than Pinochet ever was."
Your theories about Hitler being a marxist are completely out of touch with reality. Hitler was using the "communist threat" (as Pinochet was) to suppress and kill his democratic opponents. The main supporter of Pinochet was Nixon, under the directin and advise of Henry Kissinger. Jimmy Carter would have never supported a coup to install a monster like Pinochet. Get your facts straight.
"Your theories about Hitler being a marxist are completely out of touch with reality." (BW)
<
<
Your view is completely at odds with that of most economists, who merely look at the matter objectively.
ONLY Leftism (a/k/a Marxism, Communism, Socialism) support the centralized state.
Free market Capitalism is generally inconsistent with the centralized state, instead advancing what misinformed detractors deride as "social Darwinism," or economic survival of the fittest.
Here's an example of a modern day economist's view on that issue; “The only genuinely socialist countries that have existed have been the Soviet Union and its East European satellites, Communist China and its satellites, Cuba, and also, very importantly, Nazi Germany. Mises explains that Nazi Germany was a socialist state by virtue of the existence of all-round price controls and the consequent shortages they create...
"... Socialism on the German pattern is deceptive and often mistakenly characterized as capitalism because it maintains the outward form and appearance of private ownership of the means of production and thus of capitalism. However, under German-style socialism, private ownership exists in name only. The power to make all the substantive decisions that constitutes the essence of ownership is in the hands of the government and is exercised by the government. Socialism on the German or Nazi pattern is de facto socialism.”
http://www.capitalism.net/
articl...ventionism.html
George Reisman is Professor of Economics at Pepperdine University. Reisman earned his Ph.D from New York University under the direction of Nobel Laureate, Ludwig von Mises, and is an outspoken advocate of free market or laissez-faire capitalism.
Pinochet was supported by the U.S. from 1973 to 1989...Nixon, CARTER and Reagan ALL rightfully supported that regime.
ONLY Bush Sr. opposed Pinochet, on the grounds that that regime was "no longer useful to the aims of the U.S."
Carter COULD have done what Bush Sr did, he could have done what he did vis-a-vis the Shah of Iran. He didn't.
Allende was a monster and an enemy of the U.S.
Pinochet may have been a brutal thuggis dictator, but he was no enemy of the U.S.
Allende ran Chile's economy into the ground using Keynesian (Socialist economics policies). Here's what happened under Allende;
"Blaming the capitalist system for Chile's economic woes, Allende's Popular Unity (UP) government moves quickly to socialize the economy, nationalizing the country's US-controlled copper mines, other foreign-controlled businesses and industries, banks and large rural estates. The management of many factories is turned over to the workers and the state. Salaries and wages are lifted while prices are held down. The subsequent growth in demand sees employment levels rise...
"... by 1972, as the economy goes into dramatic decline, opposition to Allende and t
"...decline, opposition to Allende and the UP begins to escalate.
"Already strained relations with the US are further stretched by the government's recognition of Cuba, China, North Korea and North Vietnam and by its cultivation of ties with the Soviet Union. The US responds by withdrawing financial assistance and blocking loans, although aid to the Chilean military is doubled.
(These actions made Allende's Chile an enemy of America, forcing the U.S. to act via the CIA)
"With the economy contracting the government attempts to spend its way out. The result is hyperinflation, reaching an annual rate of more than 500%, and complete economic paralysis. Racked by internal division and external opposition the government is unable to act."
(Keynesian or Socialist economic policies destroyed that economy.)
JMK,
Sorry to say, but you apparently dont believe in democracy. Whether you disagree or not with Allende, he was democratically elected.
You are supporting Pinochet, a fascist mass murderer who killed thousands of people and who was no different in mentality than Hitler or Stalin. What else can I say? Democracy is a great thing and should be respected. Fascism of any color is horrible.
I AGREE only with U.S. interests, BW.
This country's policy has always been that our currrent Corporatist economy cannot peacefully coexist with any Collectivist styled economy anywhere in the world.
That is the reason we did not cultivate China as an Ally after WWII to counterbalance the then USSR.
It is also the reason that we challenged "Soviet-backed aggression" (any Soviet aid and alliances outside the Eastern block) whereever that took place and we suported many thuggish dictators in the process.
In Chile, Allende collapsed that economy.
He was on his way out well before the 9/11/73 coup.
All the U.S. did at that time was "grease the skids," and hasten his inevitable exit.
BW, toast with me, please, "Small "d" democracy - may we never have it here in America!"
We DON'T have democracy.
None of America's Founders ever favored pure democracy - that's why we havea Constitutional Republic that elects its Executive and Legislative branches via a "representative democracy," with the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government ALL free from the direct control of the people.
Pure democracy is an abomination and anyone who doesn't understand that should simply cease following current events and politics and go back to a peaceful sleep.
A pure democracy = the "tyranny of the majority."
That's all it is.
51% of the people can impose their will on the other 49% with impunity under that warped system.
Under that system, the poor could vote en masse and confiscate the wealth of the rich.
Does that sound like a realistic system to you?
Of course not!
That's why you've got to protect the system from that "tyranny of the majority" with things like the Bill of Rights that restricts governmental action, the Electoral College, Judicial appointments (instead of direct elections for much of that branch).
We don't have a "democracy" in America, we have a "Constitutional Republic."
And it's going to stay a Constituional Republic.
"We don't have a "democracy" in America, we have a "Constitutional Republic.""
Call it any way you want. The fact remains that we have freedom and the votes of the voters are respected and counted. We do live in a democracy and a free country.
For you to find acceptable what Pinochet was doing is finding "fascism" acceptable. Pinochet was a fascist and killer. You cannot have it both ways. You are either for freedom or for fascism. It seems that you prefer fascism in this case.
You seemed to extoll "democracy," which is a system where the will of the majority rules. I'm glad you've now apparently backed off from that view a bit.
We don't have that, never had and hopefully, never will. Such democracies always end with one tribe or race seeking to strip rights away from another, the poor trying to vote (steal) wealth away from the producers, etc....and all that always leads to violent internal strife.
We have a Constitutional republic, thanks to America's Founders who ALL rightly saw government as a threat (they were ALL wealthy and propertied men), not as a solution. That's why the Bill of Rights was written strictly to limit government action...and yes, the actions of a foolish majority who'd no doubt abuse others within a pure democracy.
If merely allowing people to vote and hold elections is your definition of "supporting freedom," then Pinochet was, by your own definition, a "freedom supporter."
He held an open election on October 5th, 1988. The next day Pinochet announced his defeat, with slightly over 54% of the electorate having voted to end his regime.
Elections for President and Parliment are held on December 14th, 1989 and Pinochet serves on until 1990.
So, by your definition, Pinochet was a "freedom supporter," which apparently is the best thing anyone can be.
Ironically enough, even I don't see him as that, but as one of a number of brutal, thuggish tyrants that America supported around the world in its quest to ultimately bring the "Soviet menace" to its knees.
Pinochet was important to America in two very distinct ways, (1) he was virulently anti-communist, as is the USA and about 98% of its citizens) and he stalwartly supported U.S. interests in the region and (2) he proved that free markets could still work within an authoritarian framework. What Milton Friedman and the "Chicago Boys" did in Chile was nothing short of an economic miracle - the mircale of the power of free markets!
" he was virulently anti-communist,
So what? And so was Hitler and Noriega. That means nothing. Communism is a failed system and nobody cares about it anymore.
Pinochet was a fascist dictator. The chilean people had democratically elected Salvatore Allende. Pinochet did not care about the wish of the Chilean majority and established one of the worst fascist regimes in modern history. Do you find acceptable that he was killing people who simply wanted freedom?
Did you know that the current president of Chile was tortured under Pinochet? Is is she a "communist" also?
I think you need to realize that fascism is horrible irrespectively of color. Henry Kissinger and Milton Friedman are moral failures because they supported directly or indirectly a criminal regime like the Pinochet one. It was another huge mistake of a republican administration, at least as bad if not worse to the support they gave to Saddam Hussein in the past.
" he was virulently anti-communist,"
"So what? And so was Hitler and Noriega. That means nothing. Communism is a failed system and nobody cares about it anymore." (BW)
<
<
When Nixon, Carter and Reagan supported Pinochet, the U.S. was rightfully focused on winning the Cold War and Pinochet became useful in that regard.
He supplanted a pro-Soviet thug (Allende), who'd run Chile's economy into the ground.
<
<
"Pinochet did not care about the wish of the Chilean majority and established one of the worst fascist regimes in modern history. " (BW)
<
<
Again, the facts don't bear out "one of the worst fascist regimes in modern history." Pol Pot was far worse, Amin was far worse, Saddam was far worse, hell even Castro killed over 3,000 civilians opposed to his regime. In fact, Pinochet was a lesser light among the authoritarian regimes of the 20th Century.
AGAIN, there are no such things as "personal values" (good or bad) when it comes to nation-states.
Only idiots anthropomorphize nations.
The U.S. pursued its own interests and those interests led it to oppose the pro-Soviet Allende regime and support the pro-Capitalist Pinochet, just as we supported the then pro-American Saddam Hussein against the Soviet-supported Iranian regime.
Both were brilliant moves, that helped win the Cold War and defeat "the Evil Empire."
There was no pro-soviet Allende regime. Allende was the legal, democratically elected president of that country. It is called DEMOCRACY. People vote and elect their leaders. Have you heard of that system before?
Again, the USA had a right and a duty to advance its own interests.
At that time our primary interest was destroying the USSR and any nations allied with it.
It was a good and proper national interest of ours. The "Cold War" was as much a struggle to the death between two competing ideologies and cultures as is the current clash between Sharia-based Islam and the West.
Our Corporatist economy cannot exist in a world where even one actual Socialist economy thrives. Ergo, America felt compelled to undermine such economies at every turn, again a sound strategy, given that national interest.
From America's vantage Allende = BAD, Pinochet = if not good, an improvement.
Same thing in the Balkans. There's no doubt about the fact that the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo initiated the first genocide in that region. The Christian Serbs under Milocevic, merely responded in kind.
Thus, from a personal moral perspective, the Muslims in Kosovo where the "bad guys," while the Christian Serbs were again, if not actually "good," an improvement. Once again, American interests had us supporting some morally "bad guys," in this case in favor of the genocidal Muslims of Kosovo.
All that shows is that there are no such things as "personal moral values" ("good" or "bad") when it comes to nation-states.
Only idiots anthropomorphize large organizations.
Large organizations like nations don't operate under conventional personal moral values.
Churchill probably said it best, "There are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests."
Our interests at that time dictated that Allende had to go. Thankfully, his popularity at the time of the coup was in negative numbers (really)...his Keynesian policies had already ravaged that poor country with an inflation rate over 500%!
Allende was doomed before Pinochet took power. It was either Pinochet or some other autocratic thug, as Allende was no longer politically viable in that country.
Pinochet's tenure was GREAT for Chile - the Chicago Boys turned that economy from a basket case to the model for South America AND the Junta inflicted very little harm, in the way of lives lost on that country (around 3000), in an age when most autocratic regimes killed civilians in the hundreds of thousands.
If a Leftist (Socialist) had taken power, probably hundreds of thousands of Chileans would've been killed, because there are that many people who support private property and economic freedom.
Pinochet probably killed so few because there just aren't all that many people who'd fight for Socialism, a/k/a "economic & social justice." Boy that's a nice euphemism for the world's bloodiest ideology, isn't it?
The world's bloddiest ideology is facsism. And Pinochet was a criminal monster and representative of that ideology, along with Hitler.
Wrong yet again, BW.
The facts show that the worst mass murderers in history were ALL Socialists!
In fact the top two Leftist killers (Mao, 100 million killed & Stalin 50 Million killed) dwarf all the others combined. Throw in the likes of Pol Pot, Amin, Castro, Mugabe, and, of course Hitler, and there's no ideolgy as close to as bloody as that which calls itself "Socialism," or "Economic justice," or "Progressivism," or "Collectivism."
Again, there's no doubt that the even the third worst mass murderer of all time (Hitler) was a true Socialist. As the great professor Reisman noted, "“The only genuinely socialist countries that have existed have been the Soviet Union and its East European satellites, Communist China and its satellites, Cuba, and also, very importantly, Nazi Germany. Mises explains that Nazi Germany was a socialist state by virtue of the existence of all-round price controls and the consequent shortages they create...
"... Socialism on the German pattern is deceptive and often mistakenly characterized as capitalism because it maintains the outward form and appearance of private ownership of the means of production and thus of capitalism. However, under German-style socialism, private ownership exists in name only. The power to make all the substantive decisions that constitutes the essence of ownership is in the hands of the government and is exercised by the government. Socialism on the German or Nazi pattern is de facto socialism.”
BUT, even one erroneously counted Hitler among the fascists like Sukarno, Franco, Hussein and Pinochet, their combined total, including Hitler's 12 million, wouldn't even total 15 million, with Pinochet's 3000 Leftist terrorists, a mere drop in the bucket.
Hell, even the second place Leftist (Stalin, more than tripled that total!
You know what the great irony about anti-Capitalism is?
First, you have to murder those who insist that ALL individual liberty is predicated upon property rights (private property) and secondly, even you succeed there, which is rare, you've destroyed the bulk of the productive class - a pyrhic victory.
It's one of the reasons that ALL true Socialist regimes (those that eradicate private property) implode. ONLY the productive (investor) class moves socirty forward. Without them, there is no engine of wealth creation.
"Pinochet's 3000 Leftist terrorists"
What you call "leftists terrorists" were people who were simply defending democracy. Pinochet killed 3,000 documented and several other thousands missing. He also tortured and imprisoned near hundred thousands. And I will ask you again:
Is the current President of Chile (Michelle Bachele) a "leftist terrorist"???? She was tortured herself by the fascist regime of Pinochet because she was in the resistance and some of her friends were killed. So...answer...is Chile governed by a "terrorist" now??? Dont evade. Just answer.
"What you call "leftists terrorists" were people who were simply defending democracy." (BW)
<
<
Not at all true. ALL of the people targeted by the Pinochet regime were avowed "Leftists," or as I call them, "economic terrorists."
It DID include some Jesuits and Maryknolls charged with teaching Liberation Theology, which many of them did down there.
<
<
"Pinochet killed 3,000 documented and several other thousands missing." (BW)
<
<
Again, not true, the numbers including those who "disappeared is logged at around 3,000, I'll get the numbers for you from another site tomorrow.
Pinochet's regime is charged with 3000 deaths.
<
<
"Is the current President of Chile (Michelle Bachele) a "leftist terrorist"????" (BW)
<
<
ANYONE who'd eradicate private property for some non-existant "greater good" is indeed an "economic terrorist."
Chile has never, since Pinochet abandoned private property. It's a Corporatist economy, much like America's and Western Europe's. In that regard, Bachele is a good Corporatist.
I have a very low regard for Leftists of any stripe BW, call it a "blind spot," but my feelings for the Left are similar to an Arab-Muslim's for an "infidel." And sad to say, I have about as much of a sense of humor about that as do most Arab-Muslims about dealing with "infidels."
Like I said, everywhere true Socialism (the eradication of private property, private ownership and private enterprise) has been tried, horrific bloodshed has resulted - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin, Castro, etc., etc.
JMK,
You are confused and you dont know what you are talking about. The current president of Chile was tortured by Pinochet, but she never attempted to block free market economy. She is a real democrat. The only terrorist in that case was that pig (Pinochet). Maybe I should use the term pig-terrorist for him?
Apparently you misread my post, as I never said, nor implied that Bachele was a Socialist, or tried in any way to thwart the Friedman economic agenda that has served Chile well since his tenure.
As "Chile has never, since Pinochet abandoned private property. It's a Corporatist economy, much like America's and Western Europe's. In that regard, Bachele is a good Corporatist," makes clear, Chile has a regulated market-based economy.
You've been all over the map in your attempts to lamely link Pinochet to free markets, as if his support for them somehow taints them.
First you erroneously claim his one of the deadliest regimes in rfecent history, when the facts show it to be one of the least violent.
Then you initially appear to extoll pure democracy (the worst possible human system) and then, while acknowledging that America is indeed a Constitutional Republic not a pure democracy, you still maintain Pinochet was evil because he "hated democracy."
I showed you that he called for a plebecite (election) on October 5th, 1988 and full elections in December of 1989...so apparently didn't "hate democracy" all that much.
I think it's clear that I'm also correct in saying that, "Like I said, everywhere true Socialism (the eradication of private property, private ownership and private enterprise) has been tried, horrific bloodshed has resulted - Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Amin, Castro, etc., etc."
Ok...read what I write below carefully and answer to this simple question:
You said that Pinochet was going only after "leftist terrorists" and he was justified to torture and kill them. Michelle Bachelet, the current president of Chile was TORTURED herself by Pinochet's criminal regime. You just acknowledged that she is not a "leftist economic terrorist". What do you think of her TORTURE by the Pinochet regime? Was it justified and appropriate?
If you can not answer, simply aknowledge that.
Bachelet wasn't imprisoned and tortured for being Leftist and that's what you implied.
Her father was a General and an Allende supporter who refused exile in 1973. Her father, General Bachelet, after refusing exile, "was detained at the Air War Academy, under charges of treason. Following months of daily torture at Santiago's Public Prison, on March 12, 1974, he suffered a cardiac arrest that resulted in his death.
"On January 10, 1975, Bachelet and her mother were detained, and tortured, at Villa Grimaldi, a notorious secret detention center in Santiago. Some days later they were transferred to Cuatro Álamos ("Four Poplars") detention center, where they were held until the end of January."
It's not at all uncommon for opponents of such coups and their families to be imprisoned, tortured, even killed in the wake of such coups...the way the Bolsheviks murdered Czar Nicholas and his family.
The fact that Bachelet ran on a platform of maintaining all of Friedman's free market reforms, reforms that served Chile well since Friedman introduced them shows that she is either (1) not truly a Socialist, or (2) a "traitor" to the Socialist cause.
In either case, it was very wise of her to continue those Friedman initiated economic policies.
Friedman was an idiot to support a criminal regime like Pinochet. Bachelet is currently the leader of the socialist party of Chile that is really social-democratic.
You have every right to support fascist criminals and mass murderer's like Pinochet. It is your choice to cheer for enemies of freedom and democracy. Pincohet was a disgusting monster not different than Hitler or Pol Pot.
Bachelet has kept ALL of Friedman's economic policies in tact and wisely so.
Economic liberty works and socialism (a state run economy) does not...cannot.
The difference between Pinochet and the likes of Stalin and Hitler was that Pinochet served U.S. interests well, while the other two were enemies of America.
Same with Hussein, the U.S. was right to support Saddam's Iraq against the then Soviet-backed Iran. As Americans we must support American interests even when those interests are advanced by our using tyrannical thugs who are opposed to our enemies - euphemistically called "less than perfect allies."
I'm glad you've come around on Free Market economics (the freer the market, the more prosperous the economy) and on "democracy" (the worst possible human system, where 51% of the populace can and usually does vote to deny the other 49% even basic rights).
"Pinochet served U.S. interests well"
No he did not. He served the interests of a corrupt republican administration at the time. America is country of freedom and democracy and all fascists like Pinochet's are our natural enemies. Pinochet was a fascist criminal and he was as much an enemy as Hitler, Pol Pot and other mass murderers in history.
Three consecutive U.S. President supported Pinochet because America's primary national interest at that time was undermining Soviet expansionism and Pinochet was virulently anti-Communist and anti-Soviet.
That's why three very different American Presidents supported him, the corrupt and Keynesian Nixon, the inept and feckless Carter and the great Reagan.
Those kinds of overriding national interests are why America also supported the likes of Sukarno and Mugabe and why America continues to support equally tyrannical regimes from the Saudi Royal family to the Musharef regime - because they serve a greater national interest!
JMK,
You live in your own world. Congratulations for your support of criminals and fascists. That's your concept and your perception of reality, but it has nothing to do with America.
The only ones who supported and helped the installation of the Pinochet-monster were Nixon and (incompetent) Kissinger. Carter and Reagan had nothing to do with it. Anyway, the equivalent of Pinochet today are the "islamofascists". All different types of fascism are similar and equally criminal.
You insist on claiming things that the facts don’t bear out.
(1) THREE consecutive American Presidents supported Pinochet (Nixon, Carter & Reagan) and for good reason.
(2) Just because we have and revere the form of government called a “Constitutional Republic,” doesn’t mean that we don’t forge alliances with authoritarian tyrants from time to time, when it serves a greater national interest. And that fact doesn’t make America “pro-fascist” (yes, Americans overwhelmingly support that kind of foreign policy) except to the most deluded among us.
Winning the Cold War and discrediting Communism/Socialism (which we did) was not only a vital national interest back then, but our most vital national interest at that time.
(3) We continue to deal with such authoritarian regimes to this day (The Saudi Royals, Musharef and others), for another greater national interest – winning the WoT.
We NEEDED to support the likes of Pinochet, Sukarno, the Shah of Iran, and others like them to undermine and ultimately destroy the former USSR.
Again there is no “good” or “bad,” or “right” and “wrong” when it comes to large-scale organizations like governments. They do not operate on an individual moral code the way individual humans do…and must.
“There are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests” Winston Churchill
As amoral as that Churchill quote may sound, it is the way of the world for all large-scale organizations.
"yes, Americans overwhelmingly support that kind of foreign policy"
No they dont. No Americans with self-respect would ever endorse the support of fascist mass murderers like Pinochet. Only people who have no idea of politics and reality would. Sorry, but we are moral and not "amoral" people and we believe in freedom.
BW, poll after poll indicvates that Americans support whatever's in America's best interests.
Few Americans are blindly ideological - "We should always do what's right and promote freedom and democracy."
Why don't they?
Because they're realistic to realize that that's utter nonsense!
We press our (primarily) economic interests upon the rest of the world and before you condemn that, (1) it MUST be done, for our own economic survival and (2) we're a lot less ham-handed doing that than any other nation would be.
I support America's economic interests and I don't care who we have to deal with in order to promote those. Currently I really like our alliances with Kuwait, Qutar, the UAE, Pakistan, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - NONE of those are "free countries," none have anything cloes to a democracy, in fact there's quite a bit of ethnic and religious oppresion in many of those places, BUT, they've ALL been fairly reliable allies in the WoT.
Anyway, we disagree. I am for democracy and freedom, but you are apparently not.
My dear friends: I see all your comments, some of them to hard, some of them with no sense about the reality of how Chile lived in the past, some with no clue or too addicted to the easy talk but no education, Chile at this time living a reality it can be to good or to dangerous, why?Chile is a country sick of to many problems, one of the important is no reconciliation in both sides, still living by the past, everybody knows what happened in the past, the president expelled pinochet grandson, big deal, could trigger a situation or rough time between army generals, so everybody talk talk and critized each other,why instead to live like that, forgive and forget and build better country. I' m very tired to hear every day some comments, remember we still have enemies in our borders, they can take advantage of this situation, comunist regimes their not good at all. I thought it was ok, I opened my eyes, now not anymore, look north korea, that is a crazy regime, look soviet union, cuba, I was there many times,no good,so chileans let us open our eyes united everybody,the old man or pig or criminal is gone I hope michelle bachelet stops those acts of hero, there is no one, only she can do is put fire in a pit and fire can explode and divide the country more than now.Viva Chile!
Commenting by HaloScan
