I am very interested in your analysis of Pinochet as a hero. I am not a communist, but I am British. Oh, and a supporter of human rights in all situations. This includes Military States like Burma and North Korea, Communist states like China and Cuba and religious fundamentalist states (like Iran and the USA).
Firstly, by calling Socialists “Communist’s Step sisters” you would end up calling Conservatives Nazi’s - Stepsisters. It is perculiar. And you need only look at your own countries political sytem to realise that not all people who consider themselves a member of an ideaology do not always all sing from the same hymn sheet. As such catagorising everybody who maybe thinks that the death and dissapearance of 3,000 people is a card carrying member of the Soviet Communist party is bizarre. Yes, people from organised groups will capitalise on issues, however this action does not override the concerns of people who are not part of these groups.
Secondly your characterisation of Tony Blair as a socialist is flattering to him. Even in 1998 he did not see himself as a socialist and ideology was already publicly dead in the labour party. Apportioning blame to him also shows a complete lack of understanding of the Britsh Legal System. I am not going to attempt to dismantle the falklands war as you have so simply done, however gaining support from a country does not give them carte blance to do anything. Wasn’t it Afghanistan that supported the US in the cold war? Shall I dismantle the Cold War to a one line throwaway? I think not.
Furthermore, you analysis of the Northern Ireland Troubles are curious. The British govenment did not kidnap, torture and kill 3,000 people in Northern Ireland. There were, however, despicable acts on both sides. In order to capture republican terrorists, the British did employ methods akin to totrure, however your comparison is bizarre.
There is one area I have to reach agreement with you on, and that is that War is Bad. However I think every (sane) person has come to that simplistic conclusion since the age of four.
It si particularly arrogant to suggest that as a high propotion of people murdered were not innocents it is suddenly OK. I understand that in the USA you have this bizarre ritual of publicly killing people - I understand this - we had it once too in the UK until we realised it was a drastically flawed and expensive method of dealing with criminals. As such, do you not agree that these ‘non innocents’ should have faced trial before execution? Maybe the lack of torture would have been a good idea too.
You also say that Pinochet rescued Chile from being a economic disaster. Well. Allende was elected into power on a plan to nationalise Copper Mines that were owned by American companies, thus sucking all the economic clought out of Chile. This is the reason the CIA supported the overthrow of Allende.
You also seem to be putting forward a relatively dangerous idea of how many people it is acceptable to kill without facing trial. You correctly identify that there have been genocides with hundreds of thousands of people killed. This is bad. You are correct. What you are not correct at suggesting is that there is a level at which it is OK to kill. You also do not suggest that if this 3,000 level is an Ok level to kill, shoudl you get praised if you kill less than this?
Harold Shipman - only killed 400 - Drinks for all!
Ted Bundy - only killed 30 - Give that man a medal!
It is absolutely proposterous. In the UK we have this strange idea that if you kill one person you are bad, 10 you are evil, 20 you are evil, 100 crazy and evil, 3,000 dellusional and evil, 8 million a NAzi war mongerer. You may not share this view. I do not admit to being knowledgeable about American Culture, but in Britain we frown upon mass murderes.
Finally I would like to end by completely destroying your last statement: “Pinochet saved Chile and restored democracy”.
Salvador Allende was the first, AND REMAINS THE ONLY, democratically elected world leader.
To support a coup that overthrows this is to go against the will of democracy. It is a strange view of democracy allow everybody the vote, count the votes, let the winner win and become president then organise a military coup to overthrow them (and kill them).
If you beleive that killing a democratically elected leader is preserving democracy, then you sir, are a fascist.
Posted by JR1982 at December 11, 2006 05:25 PM
Hi JR,
Allow me to throw my two cents in here. There is a general feeling around the world that killing is bad. And of course, we can all agree on that. What is almost never discussed is how come it should be bad for some and not for others.
Although Pinochet cannot be personally held accountable for all those alleged murders, he can certainly be held responsible, which is a totally different thing. Just as Bush can be held responsible for the deaths caused in Iraq.
Now, I am Cuban, and anti castro, but I live in Spain. And I can tell you, after 50 years of a communist dictatorship, I would have personally blessed Pinochet and would gladly have watched the 3k die instead of watching a whole country die a slow death.
If anything, Pinochet saved Chile from communism. Chileans had to deal with a few thousand deaths, we Cubans had to watch our country die.
Don’t know which is worse anymore.
Posted by topapito at June 29, 2008 06:55 PM