Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Feb 5, 2011.
Is Patroklos actually attempting to defend Pinochet here? Or just trying to one-up Forma?
Sadly, we do not live in fantasy world. The choice is not between a pinky fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns on one side, and a dark smoke-spewing Mordor on the other. In the real world you often have to pick the lesser evil.
By paternal socialism, I mean the typical corporationist policy of conservatives.
As for Friedmanism, Pinochet didn't even meet the guy until 1975 or something. As for the "indisputable" fact that he was a free-trader from the start, how do you explain the fact that wikipedia marks 1975 as the starting point for the free market reforms? Wikipedia is not a perfect source by any means, but it sure does beat a random internet commenter claiming that his ramblings are "indisputable.
I also see that nobody in this thread has even bothered to comment on the fact that Allende was overthrown - or impeached, as we usually call it - BY HIS OWN PARLIAMENT! Why is that? Does it harm your narrative, which says that everything that has ever happened that is bad is caused by the great satan?
Since the private sector is almost always more effective than government, the best policy regarding natural resources is usually to let the private sector handle it, but implement a natural resources tax.
I'm not sure that overthrowing a democratic government (a government which never showed any real signs of being anything other than democratic) and replacing it with a quasi-fascist junta really qualifies as the "lesser evil". I mean, unless you're on the board of an American corporation, I suppose.
By "black" you mean "white", eh?
I think you're confusing "democratic impeachment" with "illegitimate military coup supported by right-wing parliamentary factions".
I'm noticing a certain interesting contradiction emerging here- on the one hand, we're told that Allende was deposed through democratic means, and on the other we're told that the suspension of democracy was necessary to prevent The Dreaded Bolshevism. Surely, if the former was true, then democratic rule could have continued under other politicians?
If one considers results only in terms of profit, then, yes, that is arguably the case. However, not everyone follows that particular party line.
@h0ncho What Traitorfish said. And also I would prefer if you would not respond to my posts unless you have something constructive to add, not neccessarily agreeing with me, but have something concrete, not just random drivel.
Moderator Action: Feel free to reply to someone with content, rather than just trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I don't think there is much doubt about that! Look at the volumes he has produced attacking me instead of addressing the issues. He's even still trying to attack my credibility after I clearly showed he was making absurd strawmen of my opinions.
And I think it is clear he is deliberately ignoring the real issues being discussed in this thread, while trying to quibble about whether or not it is unconstitutional vs illegal to assassinate the leaders of a country and try to overthrow sovereign democracies while we are not at war.
At least he can run off to Apolyton to have a proper cry.
Moderator Action: Trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I have said nothing regarding Pinochet, positive or negative, in this thread. I am discussing the comment by Forma stating the alleged actions of the US were unconstitutional in US law.
Please quote me doing what you say, or I will report you for misrepresentation and spam.
You mean like deliberately misrepresenting my views while spamming personal attacks, instead of addressing the issues?
Don't you think you should be discussing Pinochet instead of me?
I have not misrepresented you, I quoted you exactly.
Did you or did you not say that overthrowing democracies was unconstitutional. Before you answer, remember I have your words in copy and paste standby.
You reiterated this again, later on. If you actually believed that, what is the harm to admitting it and supporting it? Is there something wrong with me asking you to support such a bold statement?
You then changed your tone a bit and said you think it SHOULD be unconstitutional, but you said that without ever explicitly stating that you were in error when you said it WAS. You also never addressed the why your test for why it should be unconstitutional should be limited to just overthrowing democracies.
And I never made a personal attack against you Forma, pointing out that you dodged the question or are wrong is simply discussion. And you did dodge the question.
Bit its cool, if you really don't want to support your one liners nobody is forcing you too, but that is not the same thing as spamming accusations of straw men or whatever. I asked you honest questions, I really didn't have to.
This is far from an "exact" quote as I clearly showed above:
And you clearly cannot show that I have even insinuated that despite trying to do so.
I haven't "dodged" anything, although I ignored a number of quite obvious personal attacks before finally responding to them, as others have done:
Once again, why are you deliberately discussing me over and over again in such an absurd manner instead of the topic, even though I made it quite clear with subsequent posts what I meant?
You don't think that is an obvious case of deliberate "misrepresentation"?
When we tried to impeach Clinton we didn't storm the White House with submachine guns and herd Democrats into RFK Stadium to be slaughtered in droves.
And you might consider this quote before you get all up in arms over the accusation of American influence:
"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." - Henry Kissinger
If Clinton had been doing the things Allende did, we probably would have.
Funny how you're so concerned about the "horrid" things Allende did and not those that Pinochet did.
Interesting.... Form actually used a quote of mine to make a point (Then again, it wasn't a Mobboss quote, so Hell hasn't frozen over yet)
But seriously, I'm agreeing with Form to a point, though I don't necessarily think overthrowing a democracy should be unconstitutional (I can't think of any situation where this would REALLY be warranted, the worst democracy is better than the worst dictatorship), but passing such an amendment would make a statement that Democracy = good when it doesn't always, and some cultures may have a choice between Dictatorship OR oppression (Though they will probably go together anyway.) But Democracies can still suck.
However, I agree with not making treaties with dictatorships, or at least not with a happy heart. Its kinda like making a deal with a gang, a lesser of two evils at the very best. Though I accept we sometimes have no choice.
Forma did say something that implies that supporting the Chilean coup is unconstitutional:
While the argument he was fighting against was "Allende was soooo horrible, it was all right to overthrow him". Thus, "intentionally violating the US Constitution" included "supporting Pinochet".
In his second post after that, though, he acknowledged that it's (sadly) not the case:
Forma's rhetorical hyperboles are always like that.
You mean when you deliberately chop up the sentence and take it out of context to deliberately distort the true meaning?
I obviously wasn't even referring to the overthrow of the Chilean government here.
So now even you are creating absurd strawmen?
Unlike your own.
Well, since Pinochet is being the whole topic of the thread, it was quite easy to misinterpret. If you referred to the domestic acts of the US government, my apologies, then. Still, you took a long time to qualify it.
The McCarthy witch hunt immediately comes to mind which I already previously mentioned, along with numerous other examples.
My entire premise here is that many Americans, especially the far-right, clearly overreact to anything which can possibly be characterized as being "socialist". They almost seem to think they should have carte blanche to eradicate them from the face of the earth through any means possible, as though socialists were some great evil like the handful of Al-Qaida who were directly responsible for 9/11. This has led to a multitude of atrocities against innocent civilians, including torture and murder, dating back to even before WWII to the union-busting days of the 1900s, when socialism first became such a dirty word in this country.
It has also led to some horrendously bad foreign policy decisions which frequently generate blowback in various forms. We clearly shouldn't be training the foreign torturers and murderers at a US Army base who have made Central and South America a living hell for millions of people since the end of WWII. They may not have direct protection from the abuses of our government that US citizens enjoy, but I still think it is morally reprehensible anyway and should not be condoned under any circumstances.
Some backhanded apology addon there.
You mean I took a long time to finally respond to all the obvious strawmen in this thread alone, which were clearly intended to attack my credibility instead of address the obvious issues? They happen so frequently around here I can't possibly respond to them all, even if I wanted to do so. I have found it is usually best to try to ignore them whenever possible, and which I am now trying to do more and more. But in this particular case they simply refused to go away on their own, even when others started commenting.
Separate names with a comma.