Pinochet - A Chilean Hero

[Kafka2]

Nixon- if you're looking for examples of hoe re-privatising nationalised industries can be disastrous I can, being British, provide numerous examples.

Again, please explain how this justifies a reign of terror involving widespread murder, torture and massive abuses of human rights.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by nixon
1) Just look at the Pinochet rule from 1973-1990, he managed very succesfully to recover the economy, and within the next 8 to 10 years after he assumed power, the World Bank could announce that the tide had turned. What had he done then? Pinochet gave back the land to its rightful owners which directly stimulated economic growth, also, he did everything to sell back the massive state properties to its former owners who was robbed when Allende came to power and directed a massive wave of nationalization of the country's largest income resources.

2) Allende was a weak man with a crippling power base as the foundation for his triumph. Do look at Nasser, the former President of Egypt who nationalized the Suez Canal, what did he gain from it in the end? The same or even higher inflation rate and an economy which deteriorated by the years.

What does any of this have to do with
(a) my points above, and
(b) the fact that Pinochet followed his military coup up with the systematic repression and torture of thousands of people on idealogical grounds for the better part of two decades?

3) People like you end up begging for mercy when your trial begins someday

Of all of the things I could say, I'm just going to assume from this remark that you've never met anyone who's had to "beg for mercy" at the hands of a latin american soldier for the crime of having different political opinions, and leave it at that.

R.III

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

http://www.lakota.clara.net/

But hey! At least he lowered inflation.

 

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Greadius
Yep, they do. They make the mistake of assuming any election which doesn't produce favorable results must be flawed.

Just dropped to say no to that. But when a people responds to democracy by terminating it, then there's no point in democracy. That doesn't apply for Chile, though. I think Pinochet should have reinstated democracy immediately after defeating the dictator Allende, but in the end he did the right thing, and reinstored it.

 

[Bifrost]

Amazing... But I agree with rmsharpe (for the first time)
All the history teachers I've had said that dictatorship is the only way to cope with ANY deepest crisis:
examples can show everything without a word:
1) Pinochet - Chili became a very highly developed (for Latin America) country - the chilians must be grateful towards Pinochet; during the times when Yeltsin was our president, according to some public relationships' statistics, one of the leaders the Russians desired to see as the president was Pinochet.
2) Franco - Just compare Spain in the beginning of 20 century and Spain in 70-s ... amazing: the willingness of one genious man is enough for all these changes to be made
3) Stalin - that is the peson who managed to make Russia wake up after the centuries of sweet dreams, just like Peter the gerat did. Stalin made a developed industrial country out of dishonoured agricultural poor etc. state
4) F.D.Roosevelt - ...

 

[insurgent]

Bifrost: You'd better quickly make a disclaimer, because they'll all attack you now. Please just clarify that you don't think they were over all good, at least not all of them...

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by insurgent
You'd better quickly make a disclaimer, because they'll all attack you now. Please just clarify that you don't think they were over all good, at least not all of them...

No, frankly, I'd like him to leave it up there.

With the single exception of FDR - who was, after all, often overruled by Congress and the Supreme Court - I think his list pretty much says it all. Rmsharpe, Insurgent, Nixon, now you know the company you keep...

R.III

 

[insurgent]

Oh, please, RIII, come on. I thought you were better than that.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

"That's how I think the US should react to their present enemies too, they should overturn the government and impose Western-friendly dictatorships."

Sounds like a world-wide US hegemony - bit frightening for people who don't actually want to be ruled by Americans. We will all have to go to Mars or something.

Still not to worry; conquest on that scale is not quite as easy as in the game, so it might never happen.

People laughed thirtyfive yars ago when I pointed out that the highest probability threat was US world conquest. The only ones laughing now are the collaborators (whoever they are)

 

[Bifrost]

Bifrost: You'd better quickly make a disclaimer, because they'll all attack you now. Please just clarify that you don't think they were over all good, at least not all of them...

I said that they managed to return prosperity to their countries, I didn't say anything about their politics of tyranny - these are two different things and its a mistake mixing up everything they did.

 

[Bifrost]

No, frankly, I'd like him to leave it up there.

With the single exception of FDR - who was, after all, often overruled by Congress and the Supreme Court - I think his list pretty much says it all. Rmsharpe, Insurgent, Nixon, now you know the company you keep...

R.III

Oh, please, RIII, come on. I thought you were better than that.

Yeah.. I saw him restrained and reasonable.
**sigh** "Long long time ago..."

 

[insurgent]

But all in all, I think your biggest problem is that you seem to think of the world like it's one of those old games (e.g. Balance of Power) where you just support a guy or you don't. Iran fell because everyone hated the Shah and the increasing (not decreasing) repression that his efforts to stay in power entailed. The revolution happened because the public wanted one - although there were differences as to what kind of revolution.

Look, my basic idea is that when you have to choose between two evils, you choose the lesser. I find it quite logical.
The consequence of the revolution of what you call the people of Iran was the immediate creation of a new autocracy. Now, why not have a pro-Western guy, who's moving toward democracy, rather than an anti-Western guy who oppresses the people anyway?
Besides, the Iranian revolution was not a revolution of the majority, but that's not what we are discussing.

What was carter supposed to do - invade iran when the entire country was ready for civil war? And look at places like Nicaragua for proof of a prolonged cold war. Do you think there would even have been a marxist nicaragua if the US hadn't spent so much to help a thug like Somoza? Hell, the bulk of the revolutionaries were middle class entrepenuers; US support for Somoza made the anti-american half of the revolution more popular.

Carter should not have down-stepped his support for the Shah, he should have maintained the support and protected him while he still could. And the US government should have done more to pressure their puppet towards democracy. That's another thing you can do when the dictatorship is pro-Western, you can affect them towards democracy.
No, the bulk of the revolutionaries in Nicaragua weren't middle-class entrepreneurs, and do you honestly think the people is the only engine of a revolution? The US acted stupidly and quite rashly in Nicaragua. They overdid my above principles of the lesser evil. I give you that.

But usually you don't stand with the choice between glorious freedom and democracy and evil dictatorship on the other side. No, you choose between two evils, which do you choose? The lesser one.

Finally, I don't agree that dictatorship can be an emergency solution to save a country, a way to preserve democracy by removing it. Dictatorship is an evil, BUT the choice isn't always that easy. And if the West uses it's power to make coups and overturn hostile dictatorships, it can also gradually push them into democracy, we can't if they hate us and oppose us already.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Bifrost
Yeah.. I saw him restrained and reasonable.
**sigh** "Long long time ago..."

My shot wasn't directed at you, Bifrost, but at how easily your point fit into Rmsharpe's and others' points. All of the above mentioned dictactors did wonders for their economy, so why should we forgive one for his crimes but not the others?

I don't think that's an unreasonable point to make at all. Pinochet is perfect company in a list that includes Stalin and Franco for one simple reason: he's the same beast in a different uniform.

Since some folks above seem to have missed it, I just want to be clear on something: when it came to the economy, I would probably have done virtually everything Pinochet did. But if what he was doing was so wonderful, then why didn't he persuade people to support that program - either before or after the coup, for the sake of argument - instead of torturing them into it? We "anti-communists" hold Castro to the same standard, so why not hold Pinochet to it too?

R.III

 

[Akka]

I was not aware that limiting the inflation was a justification enough to allow you to torture and force an autocratic system over people.

But just in case some people were still placing economy over human lives and rights (which is pretty stupid, but well you have to be stupid to praise Pinochet in the first place), just have a look at the link Gastric Reflux gave...

SUMMARY: So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989). (15) And defenders of the Chicago plan call this an "economic miracle."

The whole story here.

 

[insurgent]

My shot wasn't directed at you, Bifrost, but at how easily your point fit into Rmsharpe's and others' points. All of the above mentioned dictactors did wonders for their economy, so why should we forgive one for his crimes but not the others?

There is a difference, and you know that.

Since some folks above seem to have missed it, I just want to be clear on something: when it came to the economy, I would probably have done virtually everything Pinochet did. But if what he was doing was so wonderful, then why didn't he persuade people to support that program - either before or after the coup, for the sake of argument - instead of torturing them into it? We "anti-communists" hold Castro to the same standard, so why not hold Pinochet to it too?

Exactly, Pinochet should have been removed relatively fast, if he didn't do it himself, relatively fast. The people of Chile was ready for a democracy again, they just made a mistake, electing Allende. If democracy had been restored after the coup the Chilean people wouldn't make the same mistake.

But it's not that simple.

Bye everyone. See ya.

 

[Homie]

Originally posted by Greadius
Pinochet was like any other dictator who used economics to solidify and maintain their power. If Allende would have been a free-market economist, Pinochet would have adapted to nationalizing. He was an opportunist in search of power, not an economic visionary.

This is total BS, you obviously don't have enough info on this matter. Pinochet believed in what he did, he actually SINCERELY wanted chilenians to have a better life and thought that what he did was for the better of the people. He was not in it for the power, let me explain:

In the article it was said
"And we should we give him credit for relinquishing power voluntarily"
Then some people point out that he didn't do so, because he lost the elections, and that is why he had to go.

But if he was a man only hungry for power, then surely he wouldn't have reinstated democracy, he wouldn't have held an election. He could easily have kept power because he had the military in his control. And why would he give back properties to their rightful owners, this only benefits the people and derives power from him.

He had good intensions and good goals and believed this himself!

Anyway, the way the leftist-European media (You can dismiss it all you want but it is true) portrait him as an absolute evil man, like a villain in the comicbooks, inherently evil for no reason is wrong.

This case is not as one-sided as people think it is. I always thought "Pinochet bad bad man, nothing good has come from him" of course all I knew was the small bits from the news, which is the truth for most people. Do we really know if Pinochet was tied to any torture? A documentary I saw said that they had no proof of Pinochet ever executing a order for torture, but that he probably knew they happened and did nothing to stop it.

Also, people in Chile seem to be divided on this issue, there are people that want him dead but there are also a lot of support for him, why is that?

But anyway, it seems that his army did alot of bad things, all the disappearing people, tortures and dead. This is clearly not a good way to go about things, and I doubt Pinochet was completely innocent regarding these awful things (Of course that is just my impression from the media). However, the armed leftists were no better.

Anyway, when you try to make a right by making a wrong, you are contradictory and it is simply wrong. No matter how good his intentions were, they can not be commended if you try to achieve them by doing something wrong.

So in conclusion, do I support Pinochet: No
Was there a better alternative (all out riot and chaos, civil war, Allende): No
Does Pinochet deserve commending because without him Chile would probably be worse off, even though wrong means were used to achieve this: No, no matter what the outcome, if you do wrong, you are wrong.

 

[amadeus]

F.D.R.'s human rights practices were a lot more questionable than Pinochet's.

 

[Bifrost]

All of the above mentioned dictactors did wonders for their economy, so why should we forgive one for his crimes but not the others?

The situation reminds me a V . Hugo' s historical novel "93rd year". It will take me too long to describe everything in details, but the situation in some chapter was the following: some man saved the boat in the storm, but he saved the pasengers from(?) the danger that appeared by his fault, after the storm ended a person (lets call him captain) ordered to reward him , but after the rewarding ended, that captain ordered to shoot that man. "But why?" - asked the man who saved the boat
" You made an exploit - I rewarded you ,but you could kill us, that's why I punish you"
Looks like Richard III shares the opinion of that man

My shot wasn't directed at you, Bifrost, but at how easily your point fit into Rmsharpe's and others' points.

Well.. consider my words taken back, or take them as an advise, not as a rudeness

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
F.D.R.'s human rights practices were a lot more questionable than Pinochet's.

Well, it was a joke, wasn't it ?

 

[feistymongol]

Originally posted by Kafka2
Nixon- if you're looking for examples of hoe re-privatising nationalised industries can be disastrous I can, being British, provide numerous examples.

Again, please explain how this justifies a reign of terror involving widespread murder, torture and massive abuses of human rights.

Don't bother, the only time issues like human rights are "relevant" to Nixon or his cohorts is when it's mentioned in the same sentence as China. Pinochet was a tinpot dictator who screwed over the population. The only reason the far right supports him is because he was a U.S. puppet.