PDA

View Full Version : RIP Pinochet



SicEmBaylor
12/10/2006, 04:24 PM
I'm a huge admirer of Pinochet, and mourn the passing of a hero to the Chilean people and staunch ally of these United States during the Cold War.

RIP Pinochet!

StoopTroup
12/10/2006, 04:35 PM
He's from Chile?

http://idav.blogspirit.com/images/pinochio.jpg

Chuck Bao
12/10/2006, 04:39 PM
Are you kidding? I guess you are also in favor of throwing people who don't agree with you out of helicopters.

Thailand is using the Chilean privatization program as an example of how NOT to do it.

Huge admirer? Stuanch ally? Basket case dictator!!!

TUSooner
12/10/2006, 05:11 PM
I'm a huge admirer of Pinochet, and mourn the passing of a hero to the Chilean people and staunch ally of these United States during the Cold War.

RIP Pinochet!
I disagree. A lot.

OCUDad
12/10/2006, 05:46 PM
I was sorta hoping SicEm was being sarcastic.

SoonerProphet
12/10/2006, 06:23 PM
We supported plenty of autocrats and thugs during the Cold War, right, wrong, or what have you...it had to be done. The blowback has been a b!tch though.

JohnnyMack
12/10/2006, 07:35 PM
Yeah, he just killed anyone who disagreed with him. Real charming fellow. :rolleyes:

homerSimpsonsBrain
12/10/2006, 10:49 PM
In other news. Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still





dead...

royalfan5
12/10/2006, 10:51 PM
Where was your thread in memory of Alfredo Stroessner? Was he not worry of your respect. He was Pinochet's equal or better.

Ike
12/11/2006, 03:59 AM
In my mind, he ranks right up there with some of our other allies during the cold war.

http://www.internetjournalistiek.be/kafka/aljazeera/aljazeera_files_bestanden/kopfoto.jpg

SicEmBaylor
12/11/2006, 04:16 AM
In my mind, he ranks right up there with some of our other allies during the cold war.

http://www.internetjournalistiek.be/kafka/aljazeera/aljazeera_files_bestanden/kopfoto.jpg

Yeah...the point you're trying to make is invalid. At the time both of them served our interests quite well. National interests change which is precisely why we should never rely on permanent alliances. You deal with the people you have to deal with at any given time in order face current challenges.

Pinochet was far from perfect. He was a despot in every sense of the word, but he was a despot that we can thank for serving our cold war interests.

Chilean communists with leftist sympathizers were very near the point of establishing control over that country during one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War which would have given the Soviet Union another satellite state within our hemisphere. Chile was only part of a broad Soviet effort to establish sympathetic or puppet governments across S. America and Latin America with the final goal of establishing a Marxist government in Mexico (which very nearly happened).

Pinochet seized power and in so doing prevented the creation of another communist nation in the western hemisphere. His "crime" of executing communists who were willing participants in the attempt to sell Chile out to the world wide communist movement directed by Moscow pales in comparison to the "human rights" violations that would have been committed in the name of socialism had he not taken power. Pinochet was responsible for creating one of the most free economies in the world (including these United States) sparking an economic boom that enriched his nation and increaed the standard of living for the Chilean people.

He was a tremendous ally to Britain during the Falklands War and to these United States. As bad as he was he did relent to open and free democratic elections and willingly left power which is far more than can be said of those two examples cited above.

Sooner Born Sooner Bred
12/11/2006, 08:09 AM
OMG Balki's dead? Pinchot did such a good job in that show Perfect Strangers.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/2f/180px-Perfectstrangers.jpg

Okla-homey
12/11/2006, 09:01 AM
I'm a huge admirer of Pinochet, and mourn the passing of a hero to the Chilean people and staunch ally of these United States during the Cold War.

RIP Pinochet!

This is a joke, right?

If not, how does your admiration for a despot square with your professed CATO-esque libertarian leanings? Afterall, libertarianism generally takes a pretty dim view of totalitarianism.

yermom
12/11/2006, 09:05 AM
OMG Balki's dead? Pinchot did such a good job in that show Perfect Strangers.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/2f/180px-Perfectstrangers.jpg


i liked him better in True Romance

TUSooner
12/11/2006, 12:14 PM
Yeah...the point you're trying to make is invalid. At the time both of them served our interests quite well. National interests change which is precisely why we should never rely on permanent alliances. You deal with the people you have to deal with at any given time in order face current challenges.

Pinochet was far from perfect. He was a despot in every sense of the word, but he was a despot that we can thank for serving our cold war interests.

Chilean communists with leftist sympathizers were very near the point of establishing control over that country during one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War which would have given the Soviet Union another satellite state within our hemisphere. Chile was only part of a broad Soviet effort to establish sympathetic or puppet governments across S. America and Latin America with the final goal of establishing a Marxist government in Mexico (which very nearly happened).

Pinochet seized power and in so doing prevented the creation of another communist nation in the western hemisphere. His "crime" of executing communists who were willing participants in the attempt to sell Chile out to the world wide communist movement directed by Moscow pales in comparison to the "human rights" violations that would have been committed in the name of socialism had he not taken power. Pinochet was responsible for creating one of the most free economies in the world (including these United States) sparking an economic boom that enriched his nation and increaed the standard of living for the Chilean people.

He was a tremendous ally to Britain during the Falklands War and to these United States. As bad as he was he did relent to open and free democratic elections and willingly left power which is far more than can be said of those two examples cited above.

Whew, talk about "moral relativism"...
That was the big problem with the Cold War - we got into bed with any scumbag who waived an anti-commie banner. And much of it may have been unnecessary and was certainly harmful in the long run.
Sometimes politics does make for strange bedfellows, but that's no excuse to idolize a tyrant.

OhU1
12/11/2006, 12:32 PM
Back to the old domino theory that never panned out in history.

OCUDad
12/11/2006, 12:34 PM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Worst kind of short-sighted self-serving logic there is.

Ike
12/11/2006, 01:02 PM
Yeah...the point you're trying to make is invalid. At the time both of them served our interests quite well. National interests change which is precisely why we should never rely on permanent alliances. You deal with the people you have to deal with at any given time in order face current challenges.

Pinochet was far from perfect. He was a despot in every sense of the word, but he was a despot that we can thank for serving our cold war interests.

Chilean communists with leftist sympathizers were very near the point of establishing control over that country during one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War which would have given the Soviet Union another satellite state within our hemisphere. Chile was only part of a broad Soviet effort to establish sympathetic or puppet governments across S. America and Latin America with the final goal of establishing a Marxist government in Mexico (which very nearly happened).

Pinochet seized power and in so doing prevented the creation of another communist nation in the western hemisphere. His "crime" of executing communists who were willing participants in the attempt to sell Chile out to the world wide communist movement directed by Moscow pales in comparison to the "human rights" violations that would have been committed in the name of socialism had he not taken power. Pinochet was responsible for creating one of the most free economies in the world (including these United States) sparking an economic boom that enriched his nation and increaed the standard of living for the Chilean people.

He was a tremendous ally to Britain during the Falklands War and to these United States. As bad as he was he did relent to open and free democratic elections and willingly left power which is far more than can be said of those two examples cited above.


Let me get this straight: His "crime" (your quotes not mine) of actually executing people due to their political activities pales in comparisons to the "human rights" violations that would have taken place without him.

this is a pretty damn audacious statement to say that crimes that were committed are better than crimes that we imagine might have been committed. Because we can't really know now can we.

Under your logic, I'm getting the feeling that maybe we ought to give Saddam a big gold medal for keeping the religous fundamentalists and terror networks from having any real power in Iraq. Oh sure, he killed lots of people to stay in power...but that pales in comparison to the abuses the mullahs would have committed had they been given the opportunity to institute sharia law.

TUSooner
12/11/2006, 01:20 PM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Worst kind of short-sighted self-serving logic there is.
AMEN.
I must spread some reputation around before giving some to OCUDad.

JohnnyMack
12/11/2006, 01:56 PM
Let me get this straight: His "crime" (your quotes not mine) of actually executing people due to their political activities pales in comparisons to the "human rights" violations that would have taken place without him.

this is a pretty damn audacious statement to say that crimes that were committed are better than crimes that we imagine might have been committed. Because we can't really know now can we.

Under your logic, I'm getting the feeling that maybe we ought to give Saddam a big gold medal for keeping the religous fundamentalists and terror networks from having any real power in Iraq. Oh sure, he killed lots of people to stay in power...but that pales in comparison to the abuses the mullahs would have committed had they been given the opportunity to institute sharia law.

ymssra...

SicEmBaylor
12/11/2006, 02:30 PM
This is a joke, right?

If not, how does your admiration for a despot square with your professed CATO-esque libertarian leanings? Afterall, libertarianism generally takes a pretty dim view of totalitarianism.

I never said I would have accepted a Pinochet HERE. My point was that I admired him as a US ally during a tough period in the Cold War. I like what he did in Chile as opposed to the alternative if he hadn't.

I don't like an idealistic foreign policy; the sort championed by both Carter and Bush (43) as classic examples (although their means are far far different). Our support for Pinochet was pragmatism at its finest.
_______

Also, you should know by now that I am NOT a libertarian. I do champion a very small and very limited Federal government, but I do NOT extend that to the states themselves. I'm rather willing to accept a much larger government role for the state than I am for the Federal government. For example, while I oppose a Federal ban on abortion I champion the ban on the state level.

SicEmBaylor
12/11/2006, 03:25 PM
Some articles on Pinochet. The first one is a WFB piece from the late 70's.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yzc0ZGUyYTg2M2EzYjk2YWY3ZmI3OTNlNTQzZTIxNjk=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDQxNTJlM2M4OTRhOGJhNTMzNTkyNDQ2YmYzMTU3ZTU=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTJiMDkxYmIxNzE4YjAzY2E5YjRiOGM5YTJmNWRlOGM=
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmE2YWViMDA3ZjU4Mzk2NDQ5M2FkMDU3ZTg1NmI5YWQ=

The best of which is the second link which is a symposium piece on Pinochet:


Pinochet Is History
But how will it remember him?

An NRO Symposium

Former Chilean dicator Augusto Pinochet died Sunday at age 91. National Review Online asked some experts how he ought to be remembered.

Anthony Daniels
The reason Augusto Pinochet was universally hated by leftists and many academics worldwide was not because he was so brutal or killed so many people (he hardly figured among the 20th century’s most prolific political killers, admittedly a difficult company to get into) but because he was so successful. There is no doubt that there was indeed much brutality and hardship in the wake of his coup, but unlike the much less reviled military dictators of Argentina and Uruguay, he actually achieved something worthwhile, namely the prosperity of his country.

Worse still, he did so by adopting the very reverse of the policies for so long advocated by third worldists and academic development economists, who were certain that the cause of the third world’s poverty was the first world’s wealth, and that everything would have to change before anything could change. His demonstration that a country could draw itself up by its bootstraps, by embracing trade, was most unwelcome. It forced a change of world outlook, never welcome to those who live by ideas.

That a hick general from a humble background should so obviously have done much more for his country than a suave, educated, aristocratic Marxist was a terrible blow to the self-esteem of the Left in every Western country. As for holding a referendum on own his rule and abiding by the result when he lost, that was quite unforgivable, setting as it did a shocking precedent for left-wing dictators.

— Anthony Daniels, author of Utopias Elsewhere , is a doctor in England.

Roger W. Fontaine
Augusto Pinochet enjoys a reputation outside of Chile that is the reverse of the adage about a prophet in his own country. Enlightened opinion elsewhere, he is loathed: the butcher of human rights; a reactionary speed bump delaying social progress in Chile and Latin America for a generation.

In Chile, it’s a bit different. Human rights did suffer under Pinochet. And Chile spent years under Pinochet recovering from his predecessor Salvador Allende’s mad dash to a Soviet style command economy. It has also lately been shown he was personally corrupt. Finally, at least for Americans, there was the small matter of the caudillo’s secret services committing murder on the streets of Washington, D.C.

But Pinochet will also be remembered as leaving the country better off than he found it. It was Pinochet who obeyed his own electorate by stepping down from power after he lost a national referendum. And unlike his fellow Latin American generals, he let market-oriented civilians lay the basis for Chile’s economy — the most productive in the region. Can his fellow caudillo in Cuba — soon to be among the departed as well — say the same?

— Roger W. Fontaine was a National Security Council staff officer in the Reagan administration. He is a guest lecturer at the Institute of World Politics.

Thor Halvorssen
As dissident hero Vladimir Bukovsky so accurately observed, “with the exception of the Black Death, torture is the oldest scourge on our planet (hence there are so many conventions against it).” Inspired by the Chilean congressional vote to remove Salvador Allende from power, Augusto Pinochet took full control of Chile — by force. He shut down parliament, suffocated political life, banned trade unions, and made Chile his sultanate. His government disappeared 3,000 opponents, arrested 30,000 (torturing thousands of them), and controlled the country until 1990. Some insist he “saved” Chile from Marxist tyranny and created an economic miracle. Allende, a democratically elected thug, had set about dismantling Chilean democracy and civil society. The argument goes that, had Allende become a Chilean Castro, it is probable many more would have died and millions suffered (the death and torture toll from Fidel Castro’s totalitarian dictatorship being far greater than Pinochet’s). Why only two alternatives? Why couldn’t Chile have enjoyed economic prosperity and the widespread protection of human rights and the rule of law? Freedom might have been a messy, clumsy, and imperfect alternative but despotism, as Pinochet and Castro demonstrate, is a lot messier. Pinochet’s name will forever be linked to the Desaparecidos, the Caravan of Death, and the institutionalized torture that took place in the Villa Grimaldi complex.

— Thor Halvorssen, a film producer and human-rights advocate, is president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation.

Mario Loyola
A Spanish joke: a reporter traveled to Spain to learn what people think of Franco. Upon arriving in a village, the reporter asked one man, but the man insisted they walk out into the country. Yet once there, he still hesitated. "Let's go by that lake," he said. When they arrived at the lake, the reporter asked yet again, but the man insisted that they take a row-boat out of the middle of the lake. When they got there and the reporter asked again, the man finally leaned over and whispered, "I like him."

Pinochet's coup d'etat and the murder of Salvador Allende along with 3,000 or more suspected opposition members, were perhaps the worst thing that has ever happened to Chile, just as the Cuban Revolution was the worst thing that ever happened to Cuba.

But there is one vital difference between the two. Once he consolidated power, Pinochet worked hard to protect the bases of a modern progressive democracy. Castro, by contrast, made it his business to ruin those in his country — and now a new generation of Latin American leaders fondly dream of walking in his footsteps.

Pinochet did something else that few dictators ever do: Upon losing by a small margin in a plebiscite that pitted him against the entire spectrum of political opposition, he resigned. The crimes of Pinochet may be unpardonable. But at least he tried to redeem them.We shouldn't be surprised by the number of Chileans who are still thankful for that.

— Mario Loyola is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies .

Ion Mihai Pacepa
In my other life, as a Communist general, I lived under two tyrants who killed and jailed over one million people. Pinnochet saved Chile from becoming another Communist hell. God bless him for that, and may he be forgiven for his later aberrations. Not only in Chile does power corrupt.

— Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. His book Red Horizons has been republished in 27 countries.

Otto J. Reich
Augusto Pinochet was a tragic figure. Instead of being remembered for saving Chilean democracy from a communist takeover, and starting the country on the longest-lasting economic expansion in Latin America, which he did, he will be remembered mostly for carrying out a brutal campaign of human-rights abuses.

Contrary to revisionist history and mainstream media myths, Pinochet’s military coup against President Salvador Allende was supported by a majority of Chileans, two-thirds of whom had voted against Allende in the 1970 election. The three-way electoral tie had been decided by the Chilean Congress in favor of Allende. By 1973, however, Chileans were demonstrating in the streets against shortages, inflation and unemployment brought about by Allende’s failed socialist policies.

Facing widespread opposition to his rule, Allende secretly prepared a “self-coup,” with the help of Fidel Castro, who surreptitiously sent large quantities of weapons to arm Allende’s minority of supporters. Army Commander Pinochet beat Allende to the coup, which was justified by the Allende-Castro plans. What was not justified was the bloodbath which followed, when Allende supporters and innocents alike were summarily executed, imprisoned and tortured, including loyal military officers who disagreed with the coup.

Today, thanks to the KGB files smuggled out of Russia by Vasily Mitrokhin, we know that Allende was receiving payments from the KGB. There is no doubt that if he had succeeded in his plans, Chile today would be an impoverished Communist prison like Cuba, instead of a shining example of democracy and prosperity. With some compassion and self-discipline, Pinochet could have been remembered as a liberator and not a despot. He was both.

— Otto J. Reich served President Bush from 2001 to 2004, first as assistant secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere and later in the National Security Council. He now heads his own international government-relations firm in Washington.

JohnnyMack
12/11/2006, 03:40 PM
Our support for Pinochet was domino theory scare tactics at its finest.


fixed.