Sunday, December 10, 2006

Pinochet dies aged 91

General Pinochet who ruled chile from 1973-1990 has died aged 91. He has cheated justice over the 3,000 people who went missing during his stint in power. Despite that, most people in Chile liked Pinochet for defeating Marxism in Chile. However he apprently stole $27 million and put the money into offshore bank accounts, which cooled peoples like for him (aside from those whose family members had gone missing due to Pinochet). It's always sad when a dictator dies without having to face upto the charges that they are charged with. Sources: BBC News Article CNN Article

34 comments:

Thomas Forsyth said...

I was kind of hoping Pinochet would outlive Castro, but now I just hope Castro follows suit soon.

Urban_Infidel said...

I know a few Chileans who are celebrating right now.

Hey, and thanks for stopping by my blog. I appreciate your comments.

Anonymous said...

Some people on the right, especially some of the extreme faux-libertarians, are already lionizing him and calling him a hero and the whole yards.

The left has its Chavez, and the right has Pinochet. Both sides have dictators they support and love.

Red Tulips said...

Pinochet was a mass murderer.

And his death is a good thing for the world.

Red Tulips said...

Pinochet mass slaughtered people.

Sorry, that is not excusable, even if they were communists.

Anonymous said...

Mr stupider than you has admitted that he thinks killing people for their ideology is acceptable. "Purging."

Red, if a muslim radical came in here saying it was okay to "purge" non muslims, would you let them continue posting?

I sure as hell wouldn't. And I wouldn't continue to let this idiot post.

He seems to think that since left wing dictators killed people, that makes it okay for right wing dictators to do the same.

Red Tulips said...

You are right, Jason.

I deleted that comment.

Thomas Forsyth said...

Jason> Red Tulips won't because she walks the walk.

Red Tulips> If Pinochet simply executed the ring leaders (especially the liberation theologists) and spared the peasants, it wouldn't be as awful.

My great^5 grandfather led an uprising against Spanish rule in Louisiana, but only he and four otehr ring leaders were executed, and a general amnesty was given to the locals, which is similar to what Charles II did when ousting Cromwell's theocracy.

Now, to me, the rightw ay to deal with Communists like that is to exile them to collective farms and leave them alone, but offer no aid either. Unfortunately Pinochet did not do that, nor did he grant a one time amnesty for the peasants, so while he is vastly better than Castro, he's still a schmuck.

I do wonder what my father's opinion is, as he was a shipping executive with business ties to Chile and had a favorable but myopic view of him. My father also favors lifting the embargo on Cuba, but that is more due to the port of New Orleans than anything else.

Anonymous said...

""""Now, to me, the rightw ay to deal with Communists like that is to exile them to collective farms and leave them alone, but offer no aid either. """"

Do you mean communists who are actively trying to violently overthrow a government, or just anyone who supports communism at all? If its the latter, thats pretty fucked.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Wow, you now any view you dissagree with gets cut.

Why isn't killing communists a good thing? Is communism evil? Are people in countries where communism is enacted opressed, silenced, killed/imprisoned for "thought crimes"?

Is it worth revolution to overthrow a communist dictatorship? If so, isn't it worth killing to prevent a communist dictatorship?

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

The Washington Post:

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

Red Tulips said...

Smarty,

Communists should not be killed unless they actively are a threat to a nation and are actively fighting against the nation and/or commiting acts of treason. It's a little thing called rule of law. I am not willing to fight communists or Islamists or ANYONE by mass executing them simply because of beliefs they hold. Once you do that, you start to lose any distinction from the enemy, and THEY WIN, because you end up destroying all the values of democracy in order to destroy them.

Any future notions of extermination of ANYONE will be similarly deleted.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

What happens when you have people who have the goal of overthrowing your constitution, and are using non-violent means to do it?

Communism and socialism are not compatable with the constitution. Anyone advocating/agitating for either in the US are by definition trying to overthrow our system of government.

Do we interpret the constitution in ways that allow it to be destroyed (saving it in the short term but then losing it forever), or do we defend it from those who seek to use the freedoms in it to destroy it?

Communist groups around the world, and in the US were funded by an enemy gov't, the USSR. Many of these groups still exist and still have the same goals. Are the members not traitors and the enemies of the Republic? If you wait for communists to take arms, you waited too long. They must be stopped while they are still using manipulation, tyrannical judges, politicians and other public officials, propoganda and even election fraud to advance their goals.

McCarthy did that, and we still have NO PROOF that he ever accused an innocent man. But the leftist propoganda machine has already won the fight over recognizing what good he did. His was a non-violent approach to fighting the 5th column. If the lovers of freedom know that they will lose the propoganda war, the non-violent war, do we then agree to lose the country? Where is the constitution then?

Red Tulips said...

Smarty,

In fact, McCarthy is known to have accused many people who were innocent, as he accused with the barest of evidence. As a coincidence, some were communists - certainly not all. If you throw enough darts at the wall, some land at the target. A transcript of the baseless accusations Murrow collected are here.

The constitution is destroyed if people like you and your ilk have your way. You seek to destroy the constitution in an effort from saving it from destruction! Don't you get it? We cease to be a democratic republic if we kill people simply for beliefs they hold. We cease to be a nation worth defending if we follow your 'advice' for how to defeat communists.

And guess what? The US was able to win out over capitalism - without resorting to your tyrannical, undemocratic, and unAmerican tactics.

Anonymous said...

I knew this guy would show just how ugly he really is eventually.

Red, I do feel bad that I've constantly hounded you about letting him post here.


And mr SMRTerthanu. Many xians openly want to do away with democracy and the constitution and establish a theocracy. Would you say they are also trying to overthrow the government?


Something tells me you wouldn't.

Like it or not, we have freedom of speech, assembly, and all that jazz. Trying to enact a change in the government through nonviolent, non illegal means is not a crime, regardless of what you would like to replace our current government with.

The issue of the legality of "overthrowing" the government is not totally clear cut, especially since we haven't dealt with a lot of bona fide cases of it, since we've never dealt with ANYONE truly capable of doing it.

This discussion is even more difficult since you seem to have a pretty vague definition of "overthrowing" the government.

Communism and socialism are not compatable with the constitution. Anyone advocating/agitating for either in the US are by definition trying to overthrow our system of government.

Believe me. That is NOT a universally accepted definition of "overthrowing" the government. It seems your opinion on what overthrowing the government is hinges on your pwn personal definition of what is and is not compatible with the constitution, and your own definitions of what socialism and communism are, which I expect are much looser and encompass much more than most reputable sources and thinkers would cconsider valid.

As Red points out, not only did we win WITHOUT the kind of totalitarian tactics McCarthy used, which would have been more at home in the USSR, but we now realize that what he and his ilk did hurt us and did nothing to help, despite what right wing revisionists do to try and rewrite history.

And any fear of communism NOW is so ridiculous and I can't believe anyone would subscribe to such a notion.

Red Tulips said...

LMAO, I just realized I had a typo and said the US was able to win out over capitalism! I meant communism.

HAHAHA!

And yes, Jason, I agree 100% with what you wrote.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Red, what if they use the freedoms in the constitution to eliminate it? Then where are your principles?

Jason,

Your link has no evidence nor even argument for false accusations.


Like Red, you fail to respond to the argument about what to do if we interpret the constitution in such a way that it can be destroyed forever.

Yes, a theocracy would be an overthrow of the govt.
...

" Believe me. That is NOT a universally accepted definition of "overthrowing" the government."

Blah blah blah. The constitution enshrines the liberty of the individual over that of the collective. Socialism and Communism put the collective above the individual. Anyone with a very BASIC understanding of our system of government would know this.

McCarthy did not use totalitarian tactics. He used a comittee to identify people in gov't and media who were activly aiding in promoting communism and in spreading it's propoganda. A totalitarian would use secret trial s and punishment with no appeal.

"And any fear of communism NOW is so ridiculous and I can't believe anyone would subscribe to such a notion. "

And this last statement is nothing more than a very sad statement about our education system and the selfishness and self-involvedness of our population.

Senator Shumer is on record saying he is trying to build socialism in the US. The ACLU is on record as saying "communism is the goal". There is a socialist caucus of the Democrat party. We have a socialist Congressman who caucuses with the Dems. We have influential members and media darlings who publicly praise people like Chavez and Castro, and Jimmy Carter and Edward Kennedy both thought that it would be better to work with the Soviets to defeat Reagan than it was to work with Reagan to defeat the Soviets.

Communism is always a threat, just as until the end of time, islamic militantism will be a threat. If we fall alseep with incredible ignorance of the threat, we may some day wake up to it as reality.

Red Tulips said...

Smarty,

You don't get it. You destroy this nation by attempting to 'prevent' its destruction using the methods you suggest.

It is that simple. You believe in shredding the constitution in order to prevent its shredding.

I do not understand how you cannot comprehend that basic idea. Rule of law and freedom of speech - even offensive speech - are the bedrocks of this nation. Elliminating them in order to protect against a threat, any threat, destroys the constitution you hope to protect.

I cannot be any clearer.

I do not want this to be construed to say that all the activities of Bush in fighting Islamofascism are unconstitutional or shred the constitution. I do not believe that. But slaughtering people for the simple reason of holding a certain opinion is clearly unconstitutional (against the right to due process, cruel and unusual punishment, as well as freedom of speech).

You are acting against American values and against all of the good that America stands for. You seek to destroy this nation, and not protect it.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Try this for a non-mainstream summary of the Pinochet legacy. The death toll after the actual fighting is much smaller than the left-wing press would have us think.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009376

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

If someone says "Lets put in a judge that will ignore the actual constitution and will instead advance the socialist agenda", what can you do to stop it, within the bounds of the constitution? If there is no sure answer... Then our founding fathers would support an uprising. That sort of thing is clear.

If it is stupid to shred the constitution to save it, isn't it even dumber to save the constitution in the short term only to lose it forever?

Red Tulips said...

Smarty,

I read a similar account in the National Review, about Pinochet. I am not denying it. But he still cruelly slaughtered his opponents because of opinions they held, even if it is less than the original number propogated. THAT is the bottom line.

As far as the judge - the correct procedure is impeachment, if he refuses to abide by the constitution.

There are non-violent procedures in place - this is the beauty of the constitution!

Kevin said...

Mrstupiderthanyou:

As others have pointed out, you cannot protect a democracy by doing the things that the enemy as you see it, carries out.
Pinochet was a brutal dictator, there is no getting around it. He defeated communism in the most brutal of fashions, by mass murder. People in Chile still don't know what happend to loved ones. You can sit in your ivory tower and rant about this all you want. But you seem unable to hear the truth.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - Animal Farm, George Orwell.

Anonymous said...

Jason,

Your link has no evidence nor even argument for false accusations.


What the hell are you talking about? I didn't post a link.



Blah blah blah. The constitution enshrines the liberty of the individual over that of the collective. Socialism and Communism put the collective above the individual. Anyone with a very BASIC understanding of our system of government would know this.

The constitution also does not forbid American citizens to hold beliefs that conflict with the constitution.


No groups of communists are going to take over America, the politically active communists and socialists are not going to transform America in to a collectivist totalitarian state. That will never happen, and if you think otherwise, you're ignorant.

All kinds of people hold all kinds of stupid beliefs, even people elected to public office hold stupid beliefs, but that doesn't mean they will go anywhere. In case you forgot, we have elections, and if anyone tries to go to far in an extreme direction, we can vote them out of office. These people don't have the godlike powers you ascribe to them.

I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that anyone is still foolish enough to be fighting nonexistant enemies.

The self proclaimed communisits and socilaists, the REAL ones, not the democrats you call communists and socialists whether they are or not, have little real political power and are smaller and more marginalized than the green party and the libertarians.

Anonymous said...

As far as the judge - the correct procedure is impeachment, if he refuses to abide by the constitution.

There are non-violent procedures in place - this is the beauty of the constitution!


I tihnk he has simply revealed that he has little knowledge of the actual workings of government.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

What if impeachment doesn't work, because the politicians are too corrupt or cowardly to do it? Our founding fathers felt that an uprising was the answer, that gov't is ultimately accounable to the people at the barrel of a gun.

And Yes, there are TRUE socialists and communists in the democratic party. They started taking over it when McCarthy drove them underground.

Hell, Ted Turner is an admitted socialist. His fingers are deep in media and the dem party.

Jason, yes, the link was from Red.

BUT if you look to what the dems are doing and trying in places like Mass, NY, Maryland, California, you would see that some are enacting communism/socialism as we speak, little by little. Just look at the democrats tax plans. Redistribution of wealth IS socialism to start with, and a "progressive" tax is pure socialism. The inheritance tax, which is all about making people return their hard-earned money to the gov't when they die, that is socialism. The gov't choosing to over-regulate everyone rather than really stick it to the bad guys, socialism. Throw in hate speech laws, gun control laws, the "fairness doctrine" which supresses free speech, the interference into traditional families with gay marriage, no fault divorce, welfare, and how about private property takings without regard for our founders respect for the right to own property?

If you think the risk of socialism/communism in the US is non-existant, you have your head in the sand. If you vote democrat, you are actually part of the plot, even if you are too stupid to realize it.

Lenin called western leftists "useful idiots" in the spread of communism.

Red Tulips said...

Honestly, Smarty is boring me. I am too bored to even write a response to his latest inanity. Instead, I will link to Christopher Hitchens, who explained the stupidity and nonsense of Ann Coulter - someone whom Smarty seems to parrot.

Anonymous said...

""""What if impeachment doesn't work, because the politicians are too corrupt or cowardly to do it?""""

Then vote those politicians out.


"""" the interference into traditional families with gay marriage,""""

And you're ignorant enough to think I would object to this?


Red is right. You're just an Ann coulter wannabee. Why do you post on here? Just to argue?

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Hey, I guess I shouldn't be spuprised that a board mainly populated by a "jewish athiest fag hag", a rabid homosexual, and an admitted socialist would call pinochet a mass murderer for an estimated 3,200 deaths, while at the same time supporting a party that honors Chavez and Castro, would deny that communism is still a threat.

Treason through stupidity would be a good term for it, or is it really denial?

So in order to protect the constitutional rights of a few people to advocate the overthrow of the govt, and to work towards that end, you would be willing to see the end of our Constitutional Republic in the end.

Don't pretent you make sense. You are just responding to your female feelings (you too Jason), and not letting logic interfere.

Anonymous said...

Im a rabid homosexual? Darn.

So, youve got me and red covered, but who is the socialist?

Or is this another figment of your paranoid imagination, where America should be a one party state with no permitted dissent?

Or are you just a troll?

Red Tulips said...

Jason:

That is a great tag for you: rabid homosexual.

I am almost jealous that you get that cool tag! Dang!

That said, Jewish atheist fag hag is also pretty cool. I embrace this label with glee! Jason, can I be your rabid Jewish atheist fag hag?

Anonymous said...

lol, sure. ^o^

That would ownz.

Mrsmrtterthanu could be CFA's unintentional PR dork.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

I believe it was Steven who called himself the socialist.

So is it my imagination or your ignorance, Jason?

Anonymous said...

Well, I don't recall him saying that, but I may not have seen it.

Lets let him weigh on if he wants, otherwise its up in the air unless Red or someone else who knows either way can give us an idea.

Kevin said...

No idea what political label you could pin on me, as i think most political movements are a load of crap, open to abuse by those with enough political savvy to take the masses on a self delusional nationalistic ego trip. While covering up the nastier sides of the regime.
I'm cynical to the bone.

As for Anne Coulter she makes me laugh, yet another self delusional loon on an ego trip.

But then we are all a bit like that sometimes.......

I'll get my coat.