Posted on 12/16/2006 12:46:46 PM PST by lqclamar
I saw it...absolutely disgusting. They make her into a "victim" and her father into a "martyr."
Her father Alberto Bachelet is a pretty disgusting creature in his own right. He was Allende's food commissar - the marxist thug who oversees the distribution of rotten bread and bags of sawdust to proletarian peasants in the food lines after they kill the farmers and seize their land.
Your concern is not to help the people
And I'll say again, though it's been often said
Your concern is just to bring discomfort, my friend
And your policy is just a little red.
Tanuki, just this past summer, oil-rich Mexico came close to electing a communist president. That's one of our chief trading partners right on our border.
I ask you this because your reply to lqclamar's very reasonable post 19, suggests that's what you believe.
Perhaps you missed this thread. It may enlighten you about Pinochet, the problem he faced and why he had no other choice.
I heard you. We ducked a massive bullet there. Castro and Chavez launched a massive political offensive against our interests this year in Mexico, Peru and elsewhere and if they had succeeded it would have changed the entire political map of Latin America.
They failed, however, and in defeating them the folks down there have confirmed that the appeal of leftist populism is far less than many up here think. As the years pass, I am hopeful that enough of a critical mass emerges that the kind of malignant populist regimes we have seen before become the exception rather than the rule.
Pinochet saved Chile from anarchy at best and a Marxist dictatorship at worset.
The corrupt oligarchies in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America have got to see that without reform, without the extension of opportunity, they will be creating the very conditions the communists will use to seize power. Then where will they be? Where will we be? We will be fighting the islamic enemy for the next 30 years. The last thing we need is another war to the south.
No my policy is pro-democracy and anti-tyranny, no matter what color you try to paint the tyranny in. And how about answering my question? Since President Bachlet is a socialist and spent time during the Pinochet regime in exile in East Germany and didn't much care for Pinochet, is that a reason enough to ignore the preference of 54% of the electorat and get the troops out of the barracks again and into the presidential palace?
He had to destroy the republic on order to save it, huh?
He was elected under their democratic system, and hyperbole aside there is no evidence he planned on establishing himself as a dictator past his term in office. If that had been his plan then leaving a legislature and court system full of his political opponents in place was an odd way of doing it. There is no doubt that he was a Socialist, probably a Communist. There is no doubt that his policies were making Chile's economy worse. But he was elected under their political system. The putsch was not supported by anything in their Constitution. And establishing a right wing tyranny to offset the possibility of a left wing tyranny is still establishing a tyranny. Now if that is your preferred system of government then there are a whole bunch of dictatorships around the world to choose from. I'd prefer to remain under a democratic form of government, and would oppose dictatorship under any colors.
I doesn't look like Pinochet destroyed it to me.
He suspended some civil rights during a time of open rebellion. Lincoln did much the same during the Civil War.
Then he killed a couple of thousand commies. NBD.
Today Chile is free to elect Communist nutbags. Had Pinochet failed Chile would not be free to elect anyone but Communist nutbags.
L
He was elected, was he not?
It may enlighten you about Pinochet, the problem he faced and why he had no other choice.
He 'broke the chains of communism' by establishing a 17 year long military dictatorship. And say what you want, the only reason why he allowed the vote on democracy in the first place was he had absolutely no expectations that he would lose. Sd I've said before, if dictatorship is your preferred form of government then there are any number in the world to choose from. I don't like the idea of living under tyranny regardless of which economic system it paints itself in.
Sometimes, such things are necessary.
Sorry, hit post too early.
And that link you provided did enlighten me a bit. I had read that he was a dictator who killed those who opposed him, so that part didn't surprise me. But I was unaware that he apparently also was a crook who lined his pockets at the taxpayer's expense and was facing tax evasion charges. I guess if you're a poor Army general wanting to make a few bucks he really didn't have any other choice.
"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end." Leon Trotsky said that. I suppose he'd support someone like Pinochet, too.
Lincoln was popularly elected, didn't murder his political opponents just because they opposed him, didn't shut down Congress, and operated under the oversight of a Supreme Court. Comparing someone like Pinochet with someone like Lincoln in laughable.
Then he killed a couple of thousand commies. NBD.
I'm sure that's what Castro said about his opponents.
Today Chile is free to elect Communist nutbags. Had Pinochet failed Chile would not be free to elect anyone but Communist nutbags.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Pinochet's putsch started in the first place because Chile had elected a Communist nutbag. So...is it deja vu all over again? Time to call out the troops and do away with this democracy nonsense for another 17 years?
Machiavelli said as much, and he is the "first conservative."
Yes he was.
didn't murder his political opponents just because they opposed him
He didn't murder them, but he did jail them without charge, trial or Habeus Corpus. Newspaper editors, too. He threatened to send troops to arrest a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
didn't shut down Congress,
Actually Congress shut itself down after the Southern Dems walked out denying a quorum in the Senate.
operated under the oversight of a Supreme Court
The SCOTUS got real compliant after Lincoln threatened them with a visit from Federal troops.
Comparing someone like Pinochet with someone like Lincoln in laughable
You're right. At least Pinochet had the support of his Supreme Court.
because Chile had elected a Communist nutbag...
Who suspended the Chilean Constitution, began jailing political opponents, shutting down newspapers etc etc.
So it seems that the Allende was acting a lot like Lincoln before Pinochet came in and started acting like Lincoln.
Time to call out the troops
If the present Communinist nutbag starts acting like the last Communist nutbag it will then be time to call out the troops.
L
And Benjamin Franlin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." He was right, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.