Pinochet DEAD

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by Leozinho

I lived in Chile for a couple of years in the late 90's but I don't claim to be a student of Chilean history. I tell you this because you asked and it explains my interest in the subject, not because I think my time there gives me any special insight that others on this board don't necessarily have. It doesn't. However, since I have apparently been dismissed as college boy regurgitating his professors' thoughts, I'll explain how I came to my view.

I was in Santiago during the time that Pinochet was arrested in London and later released. I supported Pinochet. For one, I thought his arrest set a dangerous precedent that would encourage rogue prosecutors to arrest leaders of sovereign countries. (Maybe it did. Kissinger can't travel freely for fear of arrest.)

But foremost, my support for Pinochet was for the same reasons many have said here. He deserved credit for putting in place the free market economic policies that led to the "Miracle of Chile." Furthermore, I would remind my contemporaries that we were too young really to understand the fear of communism at the time of the coup, and we all knew that Allende’s Socialism was disastrous for the country. I said you had to take the good with the bad, and that in this case the ends justified the means. Blah Blah. We did not know yet that Pinochet had hidden $28 million in bank accounts.

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. The real power of the killings and disappearances was not eliminating those particular people, but striking fear in the population and letting any future dissidents know that exile was better than trying to mount a resistance movement. (That is, of course, state terrorism, but no one really used the term "terrorism" then.) None of that bothered me.

I met two or three folks that had been imprisoned under Pinochet. Drank with them at parties. I was unfazed. The whole thing had been so long ago. Besides, I had drank a whole lot more with rich cuico a**holes whose parents had prospered thanks to Pinochet.

After all, it was because of Pinochet that I came to Chile. I had studied international business and Spanish in school, so I was well aware of Chile the Latin American tiger. Foreign investment was flowing into Chile and it was often a US company's country of choice when first entering the Latin American market. All thanks to Pinochet. (Actually, all thanks to Milton Friedman and his acolytes, but you get my point.) For an American wanting to live and work in South America, Chile was the obvious choice. (It helped that Chile is an outdoor adventure paradise.) I went there not knowing a soul and without a single lead on a job. I stayed for a couple of years, traveled from one end of the country to the other, got bored and moved.

It's worth mentioning that the first Socialist president since Allende was elected while I was there. He wasn't a true socialist, and the sky defied expectations and didn't fall. US companies still pour into Chile.

That would have been the end of it, except later, I found myself thinking a bit about another authoritarian president, this one more of a dictator-in-waiting. He has erased some personal freedoms and taken steps to consolidate power, and he's a major thorn in the side of the US and I believe his economic policies will eventually prove disastrous. I have nothing but contempt for him. However, he's nowhere near Pinochet on the scale of oppression.

Thus, I came to see the hypocrisy in my political views. Should we look the other way when our allies' trample on basic human rights? I won't give Pinochet a free pass when he murdered in order to strengthen his rule, and then cry foul when an elected ruler dissolves congress to strengthen his hold on the country. Our country was founded on certain rights, those rights truly make life better, and when we can, we ought to encourage those rights and democracy in other countries. This would be where freeing the oppressed comes in.

I know that the Chilean coup was necessary and inevitable. It is the murders and torture, and 17 years of dictatorship and repression that followed that I object to. In Pinochet's case, the ends simply didn't justify his means.

I'm still a realist. I know, for example, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan shouldn't be democracies. If you think I'm not, then I will reframe a question that was asked of me. We might find that we are both realists, but some of us will go further before we draw the line.

Into the briar batch dareth I go...

While some here might dispute Leo’s opinion concerning the thousands of “broken eggs” during Pinochet’s reign, he does possess actual firsthand experience in the region that deserves not to be ignored.

Has anyone else here spoken with a Chilean in Santiago regarding Pinochet’s effect upon their life; good or bad?

I believe that both Leozinho’s comments & opinions deserve to be weighed with the respect due to an individual with actual (and long long-term) experience in Chile.

An intellectual debate is one thing; but a dogpile is another….


Travis

[EX-Gold Falcon]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

So one death is as bad as one million?

TR

With all due respect sir, but how does one weigh the value of an innocent regardless of the number?


Travis

[NousDefionsDoc]

It's Christmas, take a break. There'll be time enough for dead Latin dictators tomorrow.

[x SF med]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

It's Christmas, take a break. There'll be time enough for dead Latin dictators tomorrow.

+1 Guys at home, spend it with your families and rejoice in that, Guys downrange, know that there are lots of prayers out for your safety and health. This subject can rest for a bit, Herod didn't even start the search on Christmas.

[Bobcat]

Edit

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

Into the briar batch dareth I go...

While some here might dispute Leo’s opinion concerning the thousands of “broken eggs” during Pinochet’s reign, he does possess actual firsthand experience in the region that deserves not to be ignored.

Has anyone else here spoken with a Chilean in Santiago regarding Pinochet’s effect upon their life; good or bad?

I believe that both Leozinho’s comments & opinions deserve to be weighed with the respect due to an individual with actual (and long long-term) experience in Chile.

An intellectual debate is one thing; but a dogpile is another….

Travis

Has Leozinho been denied the opportunity to express himself, offer his personal experience, or make his counter-argument? Maybe I missed that? Treated disrespectfully, especially since he stated his qualifications?

I guess my creds are also being called to question, so here goes....

Yes, I have worked in Chile off and on from 1991 through 2001. I have dealt with the government there, the military, and with Chileans both in and out of Chile from a number of different social strata. I wrote an area study of Chile in 1984 which exceeded 100 pages, during one of the more interesting periods of their history.

I have never lived there as a resident and I am not a Chilean. OTOH, I have regularly worked there, know the people, am a Latin American specialist with many years in theater, and am trained to do critical analysis and cultural relations.

Hopefully, that meets your requirements for the ability to participate in an informed discussion on Pinochet and Chile.

Originally Posted by EX-Gold Falcon

With all due respect sir, but how does one weigh the value of an innocent regardless of the number?

That would depend on the mores, values, and moral compass of the person being asked, and the person making the evaluation of the response. I am trying to determine the moral position of others while framing my response to better address their questions and comments.

Stalin said that a single death is a tragedy, and a million but a statistic. Is that your belief as well? Is the wrongful killing of a single individual equally as reprehensible as the actions of a mass murderer of 100, or a genocidal maniac killing one million?

Are you a moral absolutist as well? Are there no shades of grey?

Is a soldier who mistakenly kills a civilian, or wrongfully kills an enemy soldier equally as bad as Hitler?

How many people do you think have needlessly died in the socialist worker's paradise of Cuba over the past half century? Who do you think is responsible for that? Would the removal of Castro, had it cost one life less than he has taken have been unjustified?

Should we have stayed out of Kuwait in 1991 as well? They had not attacked us and were no military threat to us. We killed a lot of Iraqis (and some Kuwaitis as well) in the process, probably many needlessly.

Why declare war on the Germans in 1941? They had not directly attacked the US. Look at the lives that cost. Was the bombing of civlian targets in Germany necessary? After seeing what took place in Auschwitz and the other camps, would that opinion be changed?

Why not just let the Confederacy secede from the United States? More Americans died in the subsequent war than in any war in US history. Most of the Northern states had no slaves to free. Good riddance. Why should Lincoln sacrifice the blood and treasure of the United States (as well as many basic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution) to force a group of states to involuntarily remain part of a free association? If they were part of the United States, should forcible military occupation, suspension of their American citizens' Constitutional rights, and denial of representation by their elected officials have been legal? Necessary? Permitted?

Is it right to move preemptively, or to take a few lives for the greater good of the nation (or the world), or to save many more later? Who can make that call? The World Court? The UN? The MSM?

I also find it curious that you seem to be proposing that one must be a Chilean to properly evaluate Pinochet, and yet are willing to make moral judgements of a Chilean (Pinochet) without being one.

Curious.

TR

[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...

[NousDefionsDoc]

Oh yeah, one other thing. While we all know communism is a failed system, somebody needs to explain that fact to the writers, teachers and labor leaders in Latin America. They are still advocating young people take to the hills in its name...It matters little the beliefs of the True Believer, it matters that he believes - truly.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Let's say that only 1% of the Chilean population believe that Pinochet was justified in his actions. What segment of Chilean society would likely constitute that 1%?