http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/...t.ap/index.html

Pinochet is suffering from a myriad of health problems...it serves at least as a symbolic gesture since justice won't really be served (as will sadly also be the case with Castro, who will probably die while in power).

Better late than never

Better late than never

634431[/snapback]

Sad, but true.

Better late than never

634431[/snapback]

Sad, but true.

634433[/snapback]

 

Some day we hope to hold Castro's regime accountable for its actions as well.

Better late than never

634431[/snapback]

Sad, but true.

634433[/snapback]

 

Some day we hope to hold Castro's regime accountable for its actions as well.

634446[/snapback]

 

Let's hope so...same goes for Saddam.

I will use for pinochet the argument that many used against the war in Iraq. There are many dictators far worse than pinochet. Chileans were better off under pinochet. Curious that the people who think that the U.S should not be spreading democracy agree to such a thing. In history many countries have thrived under dictators and quality of life has imporved for them. Chile is such an example, b/c a leader is democratically elected doesnt make him a good leader. Most haitians prefer papa doc to aristide. Its better to be unequal than to be dead. Papa doc restricted civil liberties and killed political enemies and any who spoke out against his govt, but people had food on their tables. Arisitide comes in, theres freedom but no food. I'll choose the food before civil liberties any day. Leaders need to be punished for indirect crimes against humanity not just politicide. More people die dof slow atrition during allende than during pinochet. Should we punish those corrupt leaders, who by corrupt activity starve the countryside, or those who send a country into economic shables b/c of socialist policy such as Mao Zedong or pol Pot? (even though pol pot needed to be punished for much more)

I will use for pinochet the argument that many used against the war in Iraq.

634707[/snapback]

 

 

I must have been mistaken but I though the Iraq war was about Iraq being a theat, having WMDs and somehow about ready to change my style of living? At least that is what he were told. We will find WMDs! Iraq is a grave threat! If we don't act they will strike first! And then somewere in the background was the "lets spread democracy" bit because after all Dubya was against nation building, before he decided to build Iraq.

 

 

 

So I fail to see coorelation between Hussien and Pinochet, because we took one out because we were 'positive' he was a threat to us. Maybe if Pinochet was sitting ontop of an oil rich country, relatively close to Isreal and supposedly has the WMDs with our name on it then we would've cared.

I will use for pinochet the argument that many used against the war in Iraq.

634707[/snapback]

 

 

I must have been mistaken but I though the Iraq war was about Iraq being a theat, having WMDs and somehow about ready to change my style of living? At least that is what he were told. We will find WMDs! Iraq is a grave threat! If we don't act they will strike first! And then somewere in the background was the "lets spread democracy" bit because after all Dubya was against nation building, before he decided to build Iraq.

 

 

 

So I fail to see coorelation between Hussien and Pinochet, because we took one out because we were 'positive' he was a threat to us. Maybe if Pinochet was sitting ontop of an oil rich country, relatively close to Isreal and supposedly has the WMDs with our name on it then we would've cared.

634714[/snapback]

 

Irrelevant to this thread. I used an argument that many used to critisize the war, i didnt say that everyone used. My post was full of information that was controversial and good to argue with, but you picked out the msot meaningless semantic point. Outstanding

Better late than never

634431[/snapback]

Sad, but true.

634433[/snapback]

 

Some day we hope to hold Castro's regime accountable for its actions as well.

634446[/snapback]

 

Let's hope so...same goes for Saddam.

634653[/snapback]

 

You went there :thumbup

I will use for pinochet the argument that many used against the war in Iraq. There are many dictators far worse than pinochet. Chileans were better off under pinochet. Curious that the people who think that the U.S should not be spreading democracy agree to such a thing. In history many countries have thrived under dictators and quality of life has imporved for them. Chile is such an example, b/c a leader is democratically elected doesnt make him a good leader. Most haitians prefer papa doc to aristide. Its better to be unequal than to be dead. Papa doc restricted civil liberties and killed political enemies and any who spoke out against his govt, but people had food on their tables. Arisitide comes in, theres freedom but no food. I'll choose the food before civil liberties any day. Leaders need to be punished for indirect crimes against humanity not just politicide. More people die dof slow atrition during allende than during pinochet. Should we punish those corrupt leaders, who by corrupt activity starve the countryside, or those who send a country into economic shables b/c of socialist policy such as Mao Zedong or pol Pot? (even though pol pot needed to be punished for much more)

634707[/snapback]

 

The converse of your arugment is true too. You might be able to gain more credence in your argument if you pointed out and admitted that the impending chaos in Iraq is a prime example of when democracy is overrated and that it is unnecessary to spread it. But that might mean agreeing with the anti-war people.

 

It bothers me and I do think it is relevant because the one's who are left defending democracy now are doing so in the light against a anti socialist. So now we are left defending the principles of democracy while those who rant about the importance of democracy in Iraq are nowhere to be found. The substance of this goes more to alterior motive. Its more evidence in my mind that people like democracy when it fights their motives and extrinsic political views.

 

As far as this goes, I want to ask you..are you in full and outright support of the Communist/heavily state controlled chinese government who has now achieved more prosperity and success for its people at the cost of civil liberties?

 

btw, would you be alright with Castro if he had led to a prosperous nation? I mean didnt Castro remove the heavily corrupt Batista regime at which point the US turned to sanctions and isolation against him? I mean are you arguing that we should have treated him no differently and see how he did with his nation at that time rather than now retrospectivley?

I will use for pinochet the argument that many used against the war in Iraq. There are many dictators far worse than pinochet. Chileans were better off under pinochet. Curious that the people who think that the U.S should not be spreading democracy agree to such a thing. In history many countries have thrived under dictators and quality of life has imporved for them. Chile is such an example, b/c a leader is democratically elected doesnt make him a good leader. Most haitians prefer papa doc to aristide. Its better to be unequal than to be dead. Papa doc restricted civil liberties and killed political enemies and any who spoke out against his govt, but people had food on their tables. Arisitide comes in, theres freedom but no food. I'll choose the food before civil liberties any day. Leaders need to be punished for indirect crimes against humanity not just politicide. More people die dof slow atrition during allende than during pinochet. Should we punish those corrupt leaders, who by corrupt activity starve the countryside, or those who send a country into economic shables b/c of socialist policy such as Mao Zedong or pol Pot? (even though pol pot needed to be punished for much more)

634707[/snapback]

 

The converse of your arugment is true too. You might be able to gain more credence in your argument if you pointed out and admitted that the impending chaos in Iraq is a prime example of when democracy is overrated and that it is unnecessary to spread it. But that might mean agreeing with the anti-war people.

 

It bothers me and I do think it is relevant because the one's who are left defending democracy now are doing so in the light against a anti socialist. So now we are left defending the principles of democracy while those who rant about the importance of democracy in Iraq are nowhere to be found. The substance of this goes more to alterior motive. Its more evidence in my mind that people like democracy when it fights their motives and extrinsic political views.

 

As far as this goes, I want to ask you..are you in full and outright support of the Communist/heavily state controlled chinese government who has now achieved more prosperity and success for its people at the cost of civil liberties?

 

btw, would you be alright with Castro if he had led to a prosperous nation? I mean didnt Castro remove the heavily corrupt Batista regime at which point the US turned to sanctions and isolation against him? I mean are you arguing that we should have treated him no differently and see how he did with his nation at that time rather than now retrospectivley?

634721[/snapback]

 

Well first of all I never argued that we should bring democracy to Iraq. Ive always said that the good thing about going into Iraq was that we would now have a strong military presence in an Arab part of the middle east (meaning not Israel). Second I do agree with the CURRENT Chinese regime which has leaned more to a capitlistic economy, and even though there is a lack of civil liberties the quality of life is improving dramatically for the people there. It would be great if China would smoothly transition to a democratic system, which i still believe after all is the best form of government, but based on prescriptive rights I do not feel it should be imposed or is necessarily the best in practive (in some regions). Second the Castro issue is different and here is why....

1. Batista's corruption did not take away from the general populations quality of life. During batista the economic prosperity was unmatched in any other era of cuban history, and people were seeing the results.

2. People chose to overthrow batista not b/c his corruption was causing poverty and famine, but b/c he restricted civil liberties and he hurt cuban nationalism with his close ties to the US.

3. Castro's revolution was a media revolution, Batista's regime collapsed on itself, which was inevitable. Castro just reaped the benefits b/c he held out in the Sierra Maestra long enough for batista's regime to collapse on itself.

4. When Castro was receiving aid from the societ Union, meaning that the US embargo was meaningless for their economy, people were still starving, so aside from the poltiicide of the revoltuion, people's quality of life decreased especially after the debacle with the 10 ton sugar harvest.

5. To conclude, Pinochet's regime ioncluded widescale politicde but a general and large increase in quality of life for people, even though they lacked civil liberties. Under Castro people lacked civil liberties, the quality of life decreased after Batista. And finally the U.S. Sanctions on Castro were b/c Castro was an ally of our main enemy the USSR, and on top of that they had russian nukes on the island at a point. Comparing US policy towards Pinochet and Castro is apples and oranges. Had the USSR supported Pinochet then the U.S would have reacted differently.

 

Sources: Cuban Political Empowerment by Dr. Dario moreno

The Cuban Revolution by Marifeli Perez-Stable (An excellent book, Juanky you should take a look at this one)