Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Feb 5, 2011.
I suppose you also think the 99.99999999999% Castro gets in every election is genuine too.
I did, and I still saw nothing that disprove my previous convictions.
But in response, reply back when you get a graph that is not deliberately mendacious, and when you admit that you are wrong on the issue of Pinochet.
Oh, and every time you make an arguement as bad as this in a topic I'm viewing I will be sure to bring the hammer down full force to destroy your arguement.
I suppose you think coming up with an obvious red herring, instead of addressing the issues which have been already raised, is "debate"?
He murdered the uncle of one of my best friends. I tend to take that kind of crap personally so I'ma go with fascist pig on this one.
Just please remember you are asking an American. Prepare to be confused.
(Political right and economical right. Moses.)
Feel free to use it, I did unfortunately not invent it myself.
Will not spoil the daily fun of the history nerds to inform who originally is supposed to have said it, though.
Finally somebody said it. Famous work, sir!
Then the graph should be higher after Pinochet implemented those policies (hint: it wasn't right in September 1973), not the aftermath of Allende's reign of incompetence.
(1.) I didn't make said graph. (2.) The graph would make Allende look a whole hell of a lot worse.
See new graph
How am I supposed to argue with things Castro lied about? Wasn't 50 years of ardent Marxist rule enough? Wasn't maintaining Cuba's rotten system for nearly two decades after the collapse of the USSR enough? Wasn't Castro's rhetoric for that half-century enough? No, instead you find a few quotes from the fifties. Good job.
Yay a debate!
Boo, the tenor of it sucks
I will jump in later and use my own plastic hammer!
Especially when they are completely irrelevant to the topics being discussed?
That's the great thing about history. It remains essentially the same despite continued efforts by the far-right to fabricate it into a different form.
No, it really doesn't
Source: World Bank Development Indicators
I think my fifty years of actions beat your snippets.
What actions might that be? The overthrow of democratically elected governments and the implementation of brutal authoritarian regimes in their place? The deliberate inactivity and slights which caused Castro to go to the Soviet Union instead of the US for support? The use of red herring instead of discussing the issues?
Fifty years of Castro's actions.
Masada comes in, makes a bunch of good points with some debating wiggle room, and people like Cribb come in and do what people like Cribb usually do. Masada proceeds to dismantle his entire post, Cribb proceeds to take potshots and construct semi-incoherent one liners
At least you got a few good links out of the thread?
The US also cut economic aid to Chile under Allende. Also, this:
While deliberately ignoring the actions of the US over the same period? The tail is wagging the dog again.
Name one that did.
So much bad history ITT. It is late and I should go to bed so I do not have the time to correct it all, but...
Has anyone heard of the declaration of the breakdown of the Chilean democracy?
Thing is, the Chilean parliament got together and voted on the following resolution, which was passed with 81 votes to 47:
Thing is, Allende had tried to make his own private militia, to shut down free speech and to beat up people who disagreed with him. As a result, the majority of the parliament of Chile asked the army to take him out.
Sadly, the Junta did have certain excesses. However, it is not even a ripple compared to the tsunami of violence that characterizes communist nations like Cuba, which was the direction in which Allende wanted to go.
As for free trade, most people in this thread clearly does not have a clue. Pinochet was certainly no free trader, and immediately after he took over the state his attempt to fix the economic problems was to implement a typical paternal socialism with heavy state control and regulation. By 1975 however it became apparent that this failed, and he asked the leading economist of the day - Milton Friedman - for advice, which Pinochet to his credit implemented.
There are some attempts to undermine the success of these reforms, and they all rely heavily on looking at the closed interval following the 1980's crash in copper prices. In the interest of greater clarity, I present to you this chart I made some time back:
H0ncho, where did you pick up all that rubbish from (not the quote though I never saw that before), but the fallacy that Pinochet ever tried "paternal socialism", the first thing he tried was Friedmanism, then he tried it harder, and finally when neither worked, he renationalised a lot of the recently privatised industry. These facts are indisputible, just like the fact I'm Irish.
I wonder how this would stand up in court? "Yes, your honour, I confess that I did indeed mug Old Mrs. McLaughlin, but that's not nearly as bad as killing a kitten. Which, incidentally, is totally what Old Mrs. McLaughlin was going to do, before I heroically mugged her."
How anyone could argue that Pinochet was good for Chile is beyond me. I've spoken with Chileans about the Pinochet years and they are all universally remembered with bitter hatred.
But no, some righties will try to argue that he, like Jorge Videla, was "necessary" to stop Communism, a favorite excuse.
Separate names with a comma.