The Americas The - "Why Should I have to State Pinochet was terrible?" - Thread

[Deleted member 1]

So, murdering people and engaging in a coups is more legitimate than being democratically elected and overstepping the bounds of your office.

Well, sounds like Allende should have just killed more people to fit in your definition of legitimate, I can see the issue now

Oh, do not worry, he was going to, if he had not been headed off at the pass. Once the lawful system of government has been completely destroyed, then horrible things will happen as part of the process of fighting back and restoring it. That has been my entire point all along.

P.S. Still not a single jot or iota of care for Suharto's victims circa 30 posts in?

 

[Realm]

The commie didn't have a democratic mandate for his antics either, but unlike Pinochet he also lacked the power to do what he wanted (if he had said power then Pinochet wouldn't have been able to replace him).

You're right, Allende should have followed Castros advice, but alas, he did not.

Oh, do not worry, he was going to, if he had not been headed off at the pass. Once the lawful system of government has been completely destroyed, then horrible things will happen as part of the process of fighting back and restoring it. That has been my entire point all along.

So, anti-communist atrocities are justified because communist atrocities are guaranteed?

Seems to me like your solid defence of murder, and history, implies that the anti-communist atrocities are the more likely. That justifies us in throwing anti-coms out of helicopters to you, yes?

P.S. Still not a single jot or iota of care for Suharto's victims circa 30 posts in?

You know, pointing out further, unrelated atrocities your ideology engaged is an interesting tactic.

 

[Deleted member 1]

So, anti-communist atrocities are justified because communist atrocities are guaranteed?

Seems to me like your solid defence of murder, and history, implies that the anti-communist atrocities are the more likely. That justifies us in throwing anti-coms out of helicopters to you, yes?



You know, pointing out further, unrelated atrocities your ideology engaged is an interesting tactic.

No, anti-communist actions which bring all the attendant terrors of war are justified by real, actual and demonstrated destruction of the constitutional order and active preparations for totalitarian controls.

As a few point of facts, Suharto’s unitary nationalism and vicious oppression of minorities is completely opposed to my ideology. The right wing has considerable ideological differences, unlike communism which always leads to mass murder, poverty and atheism. Not all of the left wing does, for instance there were redeemable actions by both Indira Gandhi and by Soekarno.

Finally, Argentina was the country which made a policy out of execution by throwing from helicopters. Pinochet just disposed of the bodies of the executed that way according to substantive evidence rather than allegations or coerced confessions.

Anyway, I am leaving this thread, we’ve both said enough to let other people judge our cases at this point, and we’ll never convince each other.

 

[commanderkai]

Cool, then why were you judging Allendes legitimacy based on a system they didn't use?

Uh, except they did have an explicit separation of powers put forth in their Constitution, something Allende was violating with his various oversteps of power. Allende can't even play dumb either, since he signed a "Statute of Constitutional Guarantees" to even gain support of Congress for his presidency, which he still decide to violate anyway.

Let's do points, to avoid any confusion.

1. Allende was elected with a plurality of the vote, but not a majority.
2. Your comparison to Trump is faulty, the US does not elect it's head of state with a popular vote, but with the Electoral College.
3. The US and Chile both have a Constitution delegating the divisions of power between the branches of government.
4. Allende's actions during his presidency were violating the Constitution.
5. The Chilean Congress opposed Allende, and passed a resolution demanding the end of unconstitutional actions, including forming his own personal militia (Group of Personal Friends, or GAP)
6. Allende basically told Congress to fuck off and he'll continue his actions.
7. The coup d'etat begins, and Allende is overthrown.
8. Pinochet doesn't do a Cincinnatus, but instead sticks around and controls Chile until 1989.

 

[Realm]

No, anti-communist actions which bring all the attendant terrors of war are justified by real, actual and demonstrated destruction of the constitutional order and active preparations for totalitarian controls.

The anti-communist actions you describe are active murder, destruction of constitutional order and active engagement on totalitarian controls.

What a great trade, to avoid potential destruction of constitution order and totalitarian controls.

Uh, except they did have an explicit separation of powers put forth in their Constitution, something Allende was violating with his various oversteps of power. Allende can't even play dumb either, since he signed a "Statute of Constitutional Guarantees" to even gain support of Congress for his presidency, which he still decide to violate anyway.

Cool, and overstepping your power justifies a violent coup to overthrow you?

Just want to make sure.

 

[Cherico]

The anti-communist actions you describe are active murder, destruction of constitutional order and active engagement on totalitarian controls.

What a great trade, to avoid potential destruction of constitution order and totalitarian controls.



Cool, and overstepping your power justifies a violent coup to overthrow you?

Just want to make sure.

Gathering your own private army while head of state, yeah that's a pretty good sign that you need to go. Impeachment if possible but coup or outright revolution if thats not a possiblity.

 

[commanderkai]

Cool, and overstepping your power justifies a violent coup to overthrow you?

Just want to make sure.

When overstepping your power includes trying to form your own personal army...oops, I mean "Group of Personal Friends", repeatedly violating the Constitution, and basically taking steps to remove any checks to one power, then yeah. You need to go.

Let me guess, do you have some attempt to make a Trump comparison, which, from your earlier attempts, are likely completely wrong and ignorant?

 

[Realm]

Gathering your own private army while head of state, yeah that's a pretty good sign that you need to go. Impeachment if possible but coup or outright revolution if thats not a possiblity.

When overstepping your power includes trying to form your own personal army...oops, I mean "Group of Personal Friends", repeatedly violating the Constitution, and basically taking steps to remove any checks to one power, then yeah. You need to go.

So, because private army bad, dictator murdering people good?

You guys keep moralizing about Allende being bad, to defend worse actions from Pinochet. It'd be hilarious, it if wasn't so sad.

 

[Cherico]

So, because private army bad, dictator murdering people good?

You guys keep moralizing about Allende being bad, to defend worse actions from Pinochet. It'd be hilarious, it if wasn't so sad.

private army is really really bad, dictator murdering people is also bad.

Two things are capable of being bad.

 

[Realm]

private army is really really bad, dictator murdering people is also bad.

Two things are capable of being bad.

Two things can be bad.

You're not saying two things are bad, you're justifying the worse one by saying the first happened.

 

[commanderkai]

So, because private army bad, dictator murdering people good?

Pinochet was terrible, sure, but plenty will see Pinochet as the lesser of two evils, considering his communist opposition.

Pinochet's actions were not "good" in any sense, but the lesser evil of having a communist dictatorship being implemented in one's country.

You guys keep moralizing about Allende being bad, to defend worse actions from Pinochet. It'd be hilarious, it if wasn't so sad.

Actually, I'd compare Pinochet to the Cuban regime. Allende was stopped before he could fully implement his desires for Chile by, well, Pinochet.

If I had the choice between living during the start of the Pinochet regime, and the Castro regime, I'd easily pick Pinochet, since the death toll is relatively small compared to just about any Communist government, including Cuba, and Pinochet's regime actually ended, with democratic institutions restored within a generation.

The only reason why people know even a fraction of what Pinochet's government did is because they willingly stepped down from power and investigations began.

 

[Realm]

If I had the choice between living during the start of the Pinochet regime, and the Castro regime, I'd easily pick Pinochet, since the death toll is relatively small compared to just about any Communist government, including Cuba, and Pinochet's regime actually ended, with democratic institutions restored within a generation.

"They were going to kill so many people, I had to kill them!"

That excuse applies to anti-communist forces just as well.

Do you then support the preemptive overthrow and extrajudicial murder of them? Or just the one's who's murders you don't personally like.

 

[GoldRanger]

When a nominally democratic leader makes a blatant grab for power and a military leader starts a coup to oust him and take control, common sense dictates that at the very least both are as reprehensible as the other.

Left wing fascism don't get a pass just because it initially wormed its way into the system by democratic means.

While Hitler is a classic example of an authoritarian abusing the democratic process to get near absolute power, more modern examples include Morsi, Erdogan and Hamas in Gaza.

 

[Realm]

When a nominally democratic leader makes a blatant grab for power and a military leader starts a coup to oust him and take control, common sense dictates that at the very least both are as reprehensible as the other.

Left wing fascism don't get a pass just because it initially wormed its way into the system by democratic means.

So wait, was Pinochet unjustified in his Coup and following murders or not?

"Both bad" doesn't mean a lot in a thread where it seems like everyone is Pro-Pinochet

 

[GoldRanger]

"They were going to kill so many people, I had to kill them!"

That excuse applies to anti-communist forces just as well.

Do you then support the preemptive overthrow and extrajudicial murder of them? Or just the one's who's murders you don't personally like.

When a democratically elected leader is violating the Constitution then there is nothing "preemprive" about removing them, violently if necessary.

 

[GoldRanger]

So wait, was Pinochet unjustified in his Coup and following murders or not?

"Both bad" doesn't mean a lot in a thread where it seems like everyone is Pro-Pinochet

Of course he was justified, given that his regime willingly restored the democratic system his predecessor was trying his hardest to destroy, even though he did a lot of evil in the process. He's evil, but clearly the lesser evil than a Communist regime.

And define "pro-Pinochet". I hardly see anyone saying he should be emulated.

 

[Realm]

When a democratically elected leader is violating the Constitution then there is nothing "preemprive" about removing them, violently if necessary.

Cool, so if Allende came back from the grave and otherthrew Pinochet violently, then murdered his political opponents, that would be justified? Good to know

 

[commanderkai]

"They were going to kill so many people, I had to kill them!"

That excuse applies to anti-communist forces just as well.

Right, they do. It also applies to police officers and citizens who use lethal force to prevent violent actions against innocents. The US Constitution even ensures that if the President of the United States attempts to seize power akin to Allende, the military should take action in defense of the US Constitution.

Do you then support the preemptive overthrow and extrajudicial murder of them? Or just the one's who's murders you don't personally like.

I'm a bit tired of answering these questions as you continue to fish for some "GOTCHA".

If an actual individual akin to Hitler (which Trump has not come anywhere close) or Allende attempts to seize power and remove the democratic institutions (and actual democratic institutions, not the farces that Cuba/China/Venezuela pretend to be) that keep their power in check, then yes, said forces should be removed from power. Peacefully, if possible.

Amusingly enough, it was not "preemptive". The Chilean Congress basically told Allende to cut his unconstitutional shit out on August 22, Allende basically told Congress to fuck off on August 24th, and the coup d'etat occurred on September 11th. By August 24th, Allende made his intentions clear that he would not abide by the Chilean Constitution, something he swore to abide by when taking power.

A question for you: Do you believe that democratically elected officials should abide by the checks of their political authority, or do you think being elected into office is a statement that no rules or laws apply?

 

[GoldRanger]

Cool, so if Allende came back from the grave and otherthrew Pinochet violently, then murdered his political opponents, that would be justified? Good to know

Given what we know in hindsight no it wouldn't, since he would have then proceeded to destroy the country. Meanwhile Pinochet actually stepped down.

 

[GoldRanger]

@Realm

Which regime is worse, Pinochet or the current Iranian regime?