Posted on 08/05/2018 10:31:52 AM PDT by Mariner
“Personally, I am sick to death of the moral handwringers who play the moral equivalence idiocy when it comes to fighting back against totalitarianism.”
Ich auch.
Moi aussi.
Yo también.
Ore mo.
We have our “Useful Idiot” Award Winner - the ‘Regressives’ have a different purpose for that piece of rope you’re willing to sell then than you might think, my friend ... as for me, if it comes to that, I’ll go down fighting ....
Pinochet was a personal hero of mine ... the option in Chile in 1973 was Pinochet’s pro-capitalist authoritarianism OR having the most advanced economy of South America being handed over to Soviet Communism and Cuban death squads that were invited in by Allende to serve as his “praetorian guard”... the Parliament and Supreme Court of Chile ASKED Pinochet to intervene to stop this foreign-backed communist coup ...
THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION. You understand that? When the Cuban death squads were loosed to get rid of Allende’s enemies, the only options were a. slavery, or b. Pinochet.
Any questions?
“You need to look into the difference between authoritarian government and totalitarian government.”
You ought to stop pretending like either are ok or excusable.
“It’s a damned good bargain to put up with authoritarian government temporarily to avoid permanent totalitarian government.”
Oh I’m sure it is until you run afoul of it and find yourself at the business end of their guns. Or do you think you can lick the dictator’s ass hard enough that he wont target you?
Trade essential liberty for “security”. Sure there must have been something said about that.
“Pinochet’s halo shines more brightly for every commutard he killed.”
And all of the people that just had policy difference with him? Does that godly halo of his shine bright when those people got the boot?
“It is false to call Pinochet a despot. He was a hero.”
Only to retards and goddamn nutcases that ought to stop complaining about Democrats that are into the same stuff.
“Great posts, BobL”
Thanks. I remember these people like it was yesterday. Jimmy Carter’s disaster was almost all directly resulting from his ‘human rights’ crusade. In fact, I became a conservative when Carter threatened to pull our troops out of South Korea because they didn’t meet his standards - the fact that the South Korean government was virtually in tears saying that the Norks would overrun them in a New York minute didn’t even register with him. Thankfully some adults in his administration got to him and he only removed half of our troops (I remember reading about it in a dentist office and deciding at that moment how important it was to engage, because there were some really STUPID people in politics).
Then you have Iran, which speaks for itself, and Nicaragua too...lots of freedom in those countries after we overthrew less-than-perfect governments. Note how these apologists will NEVER admit they were just plain wrong...no different than Leftists.
He almost did the same in South Africa, but, thankfully, someone was able to get to him and tell him that the Cold War would be over roughly 2 weeks after the white government fell, as the Soviets would have complete control of virtually every strategic resource we needed for our military. Again, Carter was stopped, thank God.
The fact that we even have people on this site who cannot seem to understand that not all of our friends are going to perfect angels may help explain why Trump is having so much trouble with NeverTrumpers, who I really thought learned something between seeing Carter and Reagan...but I guess they didn’t. They live in their own little world, I guess not giving a damn what happens to this country if we wind up with no friends overseas...as China is more than willing (and able) to pick up right where the Soviets left off.
It’s hopeless, let’s keep this discussion to the adults here who understand what Chile was facing...I’m done, they’re no different than trying to reason with NeverTrumpers.
None of us should be evaluating Pinochet’s behavior by internal US standards . In the CONTEXT of his country AND the times he lived in, he was a HERO.
Not a Saint.
But a HERO.
“We have our “Useful Idiot” Award Winner “
Yeah. The morons on FR that celebrate a dictator and think how cool it would be to have that here.
“Pinochet was a personal hero of mine”
Dictators are not heroes of mine.
“the option in Chile in 1973 was Pinochet’s pro-capitalist authoritarianism OR having the most advanced economy of South America being handed over to Soviet Communism”
No it wasn’t.
You just excuse the hilariously sanitized phrase “pro-capitalist authoritarianism” as being “ok” because it wasn’t communism. It’s still AUTHORITARIAN, genius.
That dumb bastard could have ousted Allende, banned communist and Marxist parties, and then held elections if he really on the level.
But nah! He just decided to ban all opposition, and just stay on for over a decade, only leaving when he realized that his “authoritarianism” wasn’t all that cool like some idiots here think it should be. The people of Chile were apparently too stupid to be trusted and needed the “loving hand” of despotism to keep them “safe”....only to then have them toss him out on his ass the first chance they got.
Seriously glad the founding fathers didnt have the stupidity the deluded fools defending this regime.
“None of us should be evaluating Pinochet’s behavior by internal US standards”
Do we extend that convenient standard to what is happening in Cuba, S. Africa, Iran, or China?
Don’t I remember seeing you chanting “Down with The Shah!” outside the Iranian embassy in DC in 1978? Yeah, The Shah ... real bad guy ... no nerve either ... he blinked instead of ordering the troops to open fire ...
But that one turned out much better than Chile didn’t it?
Graduate of the “Moral Equivalency” courses that spread through academia a few decades ago are we?
I recommend some “light reading” that might help yoou to see some “nuances” in your comparisons:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087
Thinking some more - it does seem like the NeverTrumper mentality. We could say in late 2016 that Trump ‘may’ just be better than Hillary, he’s promised to be better, and we KNOW FULL WELL what Hillary will do...and we know that Trump could not be worse, no matter what he did...we had NOTHING TO LOSE by voting for Trump, at a minimum.
But none of that mattered to the NeverTrumpers - they simply said that Trump was ‘uncouth’ and a ‘boor’, and therefore they were simply UNABLE TO COMPREHEND what the alternative was, and thus they supported the alternative. It’s some kind of mindset that some people have, when they’re simply unable to think through what they support, because they hate the other option so much.
“And I’ve yet to hear any of Pinochet’s fangirls on FR tell me where I’m wrong!”
Benjamin Franklin wrote, “......for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects which I once thought right but found to be otherwise...”
Doesn’t it tell you anything that you are becoming angry at being contradicted? It’s really an overreaction.
Everything you “know” about Pinochet seems to be fake news invention.
“Doesn’t it tell you anything that you are becoming angry at being contradicted?”
You’ve still yet to do so. Just redefine despotism and tyranny in the same way SJWs redefine concepts they are too embarrassed to be seen as championing as to make assuage your embarrassment in being on the same side of it.
“Everything you “know” about Pinochet seems to be fake news invention.”
You can keep parroting that stupid talking point all you want, but until you clowns can actually show me where I’m wrong (again, none of you seem to be capable of this *shocker*), you are only bullsh*tting yourselves.
“Graduate of the “Moral Equivalency” courses that spread through academia a few decades ago are we?”
Nope. Thanks for asking.
I just dont like despotism and dictatorships.
You do....if you agree with the despot.
Did you by any chance go to a standard state university? People that go there seem to gravitate towards a love of top-down state structures.
“Don’t I remember seeing you chanting “Down with The Shah!” outside the Iranian embassy in DC in 1978? “
No because I wasn’t born until the tail end of 1978. Sorry.
And no I’m not a fan of that guy either. Less of a fan of what replaced him (because I dont have to like either, just in case this confuses you). He blew plenty of chances to diffuse the growing cancer of the Islamists because he was too tone-deaf, like most authoritarians.
Tiy;ew eufgr~Sme Conservatives are channeling Jimmy Carter in their attacks on Pinochet. At least the Patriot Prayers know better == an they’re good fighters, too.
“He also used his office to embezzle, take kick-backs from arms dealers, launder money, and avoid taxes. “
I’m sorry, but this thread isn’t about your love in life Obama.
You lack the moral courage to face the possibility that you have been fooled, and your cowardice manifests itself as groundless rage.
What, do you really think that the media were honest and objective back then? No, they were as dishonest and biased as they are now, and they got you. They convinced you of things that are not true, and you would rather persist in error than admit it.
Printed in Human Events, September 5, 1981
Totalitarianism vs. Authoritarianism
One of the Reagan Administration’s major foreign policy departures has been to redefine our government’s conception of human rights and to reorder its priorities.
The liberals are up in arms over the new direction, because it seemingly represents a willingness to indict repression by left-wing regimes while looking the other way when it comes to right-wing dictatorships. Actually, the government’s new human rights policy is based on another distinction, namely that between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Argentina, El Salvador and Uruguay are examples of the former. Cuba and the Soviet Union represent the latter.
While many authoritarian governments are classified as rightist and many totalitarian ones are viewed as leftist, this correlation is neither perfect nor inherent. (Nazi Germany is classified as both right-wing and totalitarian).
The only thing the Reagan Administration has suggested, rather timidly at that, is that totalitarian regimes are more repressive than authoritarian ones.
Prof. Ernest Lefever was one of the people who recently drew the distinction.
This did not sit well with liberals. They saw it as one more sign of Lefever’s rightist leanings, and they therefore made it impossible for him to become Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights.
However, the Administration need not be timid about the distinction between authoritarian and totalitarian governments, and liberals must not be permitted to treat it as some sort of phony verbal gimmick. The distinction is basic and well established in political science and in the literature on political violence. It is valid and meaningful.
The repressive powers of totalitarian governments are infinitely greater than those of authoritarian ones. Proof of this lies in the fact that countries such as Nazi Germany, Cuba and the Soviet Union have never had a terrorist problem, whereas countries like Argentina, Uruguay and El Salvador of course do. The menace provided to human rights by totalitarian systems is far greater and more irreversible than that coming from authoritarian dictatorships.
Totalitarian regimes are far more efficient in their ruthlessness and commit violence on a much greater scale.
Consider the case of Argentina. Jacobo Timerman is an exiled publisher from that country. He has just published his memoir in which he describes the gruesome torture and imprisonment he received at the hands of Argentina’s ruling junta. Timerman has been eagerly coopted by America’s liberal establishment. His experience and his book are used as ammunition to attack Reagan’s new human rights emphasis. Timerman is proof, so the reasoning goes, that there should be no compromises with regimes like Argentina’s.
The liberals are wrong. Some of them may truly believe in the morality of their beliefs, and some are simply twisting their arguments because they are wedded to the vested interests of the American liberal establishment. Whatever the case may be, they are wrong.
Nobody is saying that the rulers of Argentina are nice guys. Timerman no doubt suffered great injustice (although it is not clear that this was because he is Jewish).
What liberals refuse to face is the fact that Argentina’s present condition is the inevitable outcome of the unbearable level of violence and terrorism which prevailed in the mid- 1970s, and the vast majority of Argentinians prefer their current situation to what was happening then.
The facts speak for themselves. Between 1970 and 1977, terrorism in Argentina became a massive problem. At the height of their activities, the ERP (Ejercito Revolucionario del Pueblo) and the Montoneros numbered over 30,000.
Along with many other smaller groups, they were responsible for hundreds of kidnappings, bombings and indiscriminate killings of foreigners, natives and innocent civilians. Their annual budget, derived from ransom, was over $100 million.
One single ransom netted $60 million. As terrorism expert Walter Lacqueur notes, Argentina became one of the very first cases in history of terrorism turning into urban guerrilla warfare.
It is an axiom in the study of terrorism that when the level of violence finally threatens the very foundation of society, the state will, with its infinitely vaster resources, introduce whatever repressive measures are necessary as a last resort to guarantee a return to order and collective survival. The price, of course, is a loss of democratic values.
This is clearly what happened in Argentina. After 1977, terrorism subsided. It is now entirely under control.
The pattern occurred in Uruguay a few years earlier. There, terrorism began in 1961 and gradually grew to massive proportions until it was defeated in 1972. Like Argentina, Uruguay became an authoritarian dictatorship.
The liberals attribute terrorism to unbearable economic deprivation, but no such correlation exists. While the Tupamaros of Uruguay and the Montoneros of Argentina rose during economic depressions, Brazil’s great upsurge of terrorism (1968-1971) happened precisely during an economic boom. There is simply no cause-and-effect relationship between terrorism on the one hand and poverty and oppression on the other: witness the German Red Army faction, the Italian Red Brigades and other similar groups.
The Carter Administration’s human rights policy was quixotic and counter-productive. The new Administration’s approach is correct. It makes sense to distinguish between authoritarianism and totalitarianism. While governments such as Uruguay and Argentina’s are repressive, they are less rigorously so than the USSR government, and they are the unfortunate but inevitable response of societies that were recently floundering on the verge of anarchy.
The real world does not consist of two sides—good and evil—but of many gradations of both. It is fortunate that the Reagan Administration recognizes this fact.
Fair enough. I get what you’re saying. And I WAS a little too sarcastic earlier - thank you for not pursuing that line.
Its not my desire to have fights online ... just get carried away a bit sometimes ... ;>)
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.