[NousDefionsDoc]

EX-Gold Falcon,
Read Leozinho's post you quoted again. Here are some examples of indicators:

but I don't claim to be a student of Chilean history

I knew, as everyone did, that most of the folks rounded up and tortured or killed in the days and months after the coup didn't posed a threat to Pinochet's government. They were labor leaders, writers, teachers that had been fingered as sympathetic to Allende, not subversives.

I met two or three folks that had been imprisoned under Pinochet. Drank with them at parties.

I haven't seen anyone here claim Pinochet was a hero or even a nice guy. What I have seen are several members taking an opposing view in a debate that was initiated by blanket statements echoed from popular sentiment from the press and other sources without putting the actions of the times in context.

I haven't seen anyone claim expertise in Chilean history either, but I can assure you that several of us have spent decades studying communism, insurgency and politics in Latin America - of which the Pinochet-Allende era was a significant factor.

The second statement quoted above regarding "labor leaders, writers and teachers" is indicative of a lack of understanding of communist insurgent trends and strategies in Latin America. If he had included Liberation Theology and The Church and agrarian reform, he would have had the complete list. How could he (Leozinho) possibly know they didn't pose a threat to Pinochet's government or the stability of Chile or even the region? Those are the precisely the groups that have historically posed those very threats throughout Latin America. Abimael Guzman was a teacher, Camilo Torres Restrepo was a teacher and writer and very active in labor. Want more examples?

But even more than this specific topic, the debate is an attempt to show a young QP just starting out to think for himself and not assume. To take the measure of the man as a whole in the context of the times and the issues he faced - not to label him as "evil" because it is the popular thing to do. To see both sides of the story.

Now, let's jump to the future. The ME is resolved, alternative fuel is a reality. The greatest issue to US national security is illegal Latin immigration. Leozinho is sent with his A-Team to Chile to help the Chilean military suppress yet another communist insurgency in that country. The difference is, this time, the memory of Pinochet has faded and the wounds healed enough that he is now recognized as a Heroe de la Patria. Why? Because this time, the communists actually managed to take over and the purge that followed made Pinochet's regime seem benevolent by comparison. The People saw how bad it could have been.

Leozinho, because he previously lived there, has been tasked to lead the rapport-building effort. Because of his preconceived notions regarding Pinochet, he is able to establish rapport with the sons and daughters of domestic employees and academics, but not with the sons of the military from Pinochet's time, who are now leading the effort to stabilize the Southern Cone.

All because he drank with a couple of people at parties?

It is very easy to criticize the actions and decisions of leaders with the benefit of 20 years of hindsight. It is more difficult to take those actions and make those decisions at the moment, with your country under immediate threat, with only the information knowable at the time.

Learn the difference between a debate with an object lesson and a dogpile. We don't dogpile here, there's no need. If you or Leozinho or both of you wish to change positions in the debate, we can do that as well...