ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
he had a private army and when asked to stop doing that by the Congress said nah.
this is "yet to approach"?
The Americas The - "Why Should I have to State Pinochet was terrible?" - Thread
- Thread starter Comrade Clod
- Start date
this is "yet to approach"?
I get the impression that to some people on the Left, any country that isn't 100% Real Communism(tm) is therefore "Capitalist" by default. They'd be blaming the Holodomor on "Capitalism" if we let them.
I think it's more of a case of deciding that India, because it wasn't officially 100% communist but insisted on maintaining democratic institutions (save for Indira Gandhi flirting with dictatorship in the "Emergency" in the 1970s), doesn't count as a true Socialist/Communist state and therefore their failings must be counted toward Capitalism.
Name Corrupted by Chaos
Member
Considering that people here aren't willing to oppose Trump over his policy of separating the children of an ethnic group from their parents, yes, you do endorse genocide.
Even if you aren't aware that what you're advocating is genocide.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
@Name Corrupted by Chaos, please demonstrate one case of a child from the ICE detention centres being put up for adoption to a non-hispanic family, or indeed at all, without the permission of the parents.
I seem to recall the children are being sent back to their own homelands and ethnic groups. Also, this is a derail, so if you want to talk more, create a thread.
I seem to recall the children are being sent back to their own homelands and ethnic groups. Also, this is a derail, so if you want to talk more, create a thread.
Name Corrupted by Chaos
Member
No, you're remembering incorrectly, the children aren't being sent home or being let go, they aren't old enough to make the decision to leave on their own which is the typical flawed defense of the Trump admin's actions and wouldn't be able to survive on their own regardless, and Trump's ICE has made sure to never document who the child's parents were to ensure that they can never be reunited with their families.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Illegla imigrants aren't an ethnic group, and almost a third of them don't arrive with their parents, but rather slaves that were bought/kidnapped for either sympathy or sexual usage.
Citation needed.
This is a friendly warning to not derail the current topic.
If you wish to continue discussing ICE Detention Centers/Illegal Immigration, please create or move to the appropriate thread.
- GDI Thread Management and Organization Division
If you wish to continue discussing ICE Detention Centers/Illegal Immigration, please create or move to the appropriate thread.
- GDI Thread Management and Organization Division
*stands up*
I think raping people with dogs is bad and do not support it.
I think raping people with dogs is bad and do not support it.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
@Husky_Khan , I don't think anyone supports those cruelties; to be honest, for the most part, I doubt the people who committed them supported them except for a small fraction who were sociopaths. The human mind does strange things in groups and in situations in which the whole moral fabric of society has degenerated. Events are tolerated to occur which a person may sincerely find abhorrent; the ways, means, and rationale of protest seem to slip away in the exigency of circumstance. That is the true horror of war, the true logic which it has to its own. To embark on civil conflict is to ultimately leave sanity behind.
Oh I agree... but I feel at this juncture making such a proclamation helps skewer how silly some of the arguments in this thread are. Like somehow arguing for anything short of complete denunciation of Pinochet is somehow endorsement of every petty evil and cruelty alleged against his regime. It felt silly stating what I did in my last post, but that's basically what they wanted it seemed.
Obviously there's a spectrum here.... we should all be very familiar with spectrums nowadays.
So now with that out of the way... everything in this discussion should go swimmingly.
Does anyone?
But it sounds more like crazy war propaganda than like something that could actually have happened.
The current argument seems to be on the level of:
"Do you support the Police?"
"Well, yeah, I think on net their a positive on the world. They help keep crime in check."
"So you support KKK white supremacist then! Since some cops and some departments are KKK!"
"Wha?"
As to my opinion on this, Pinochet from a high level seems to have been necessary to avoid communism, which would have been a disaster. Just look at what happened in Venesuala, for what Cuba can do to a country that idiotically subjects itself to Cuban Vassalage (along with the general damage done by communist idiocy). It wasn't an ideal solution, sure, but neither was the Civil War an ideal solution to keeping the Union whole. It was also the only real option by 1860.
Just as WWII, with all its awfulness, was more or less a necessary undertaking by Britain and France in order to stop Hitler by 1940.
Sometimes, Dictatorship is the right solution. There's a reason the Roman Republic, who so jealously guarded their Republican norms and institutions, had a "get rid of all that and put the Dictator in charge for a year" clause in that otherwise immensely Republican power balancing system. There's a reason the US system, designed by people with an immense amount of suspicion of central or unchecked authority, still created a position wielded by a single man (not even dividing it in two like the Romans did with their Consuls!) which, if the President wished to, could wield an awesome amount of power.
Its not an ideal solution, but real life doesn't normally provide ideal situations. Real world problems generally require imperfect solutions.
"Do you support the Police?"
"Well, yeah, I think on net their a positive on the world. They help keep crime in check."
"So you support KKK white supremacist then! Since some cops and some departments are KKK!"
"Wha?"
As to my opinion on this, Pinochet from a high level seems to have been necessary to avoid communism, which would have been a disaster. Just look at what happened in Venesuala, for what Cuba can do to a country that idiotically subjects itself to Cuban Vassalage (along with the general damage done by communist idiocy). It wasn't an ideal solution, sure, but neither was the Civil War an ideal solution to keeping the Union whole. It was also the only real option by 1860.
Just as WWII, with all its awfulness, was more or less a necessary undertaking by Britain and France in order to stop Hitler by 1940.
Sometimes, Dictatorship is the right solution. There's a reason the Roman Republic, who so jealously guarded their Republican norms and institutions, had a "get rid of all that and put the Dictator in charge for a year" clause in that otherwise immensely Republican power balancing system. There's a reason the US system, designed by people with an immense amount of suspicion of central or unchecked authority, still created a position wielded by a single man (not even dividing it in two like the Romans did with their Consuls!) which, if the President wished to, could wield an awesome amount of power.
Its not an ideal solution, but real life doesn't normally provide ideal situations. Real world problems generally require imperfect solutions.
Yokkiziikzekker
Well-known member
Britain and France were not dictatorships, that was Hitler. We fought two fucking world wars because of dicfuckingtatorship. In what universe is dictatorship "right"?
And BTW, not everyone who protests police brutality thinks every police officer is a KKK. That's just fucking stupid.
The civil war was also not a dictatorship. Wars generally are not. Seeing as one is an event, and the other is a leadership structure. They were however unpleasant but necessary things, which is the analogy. And we did not fight two World wars because "dictatorship". That's silly. And completely A-historical.
I used examples to highlight the level this argument is on, where anything but full throated condemnation is to support all negative and unpleasant aspects of the thing. Like saying because you supported war with Hitler, you supported interning the Japanese, or burning a whole lot of Japanese and German civilians to death in the bombings of Tokyo and Dresden. Or whatever abuses of prisoners and civilians in occupied territories that I'm sure happened despite safeguards against it, or people arrested on the home front for various "subversive" activities that they were really innocent of or who got hit with punishments far disproportionate to their actual crime due to wartime zeal and paranoia.
The bringing up of Britain and France was likely more the "must go to unpleasant measures" point, not "pro-dictatorship". Although the British government, that is Parliament, voted itself dictatorial-level powers for the war, just as Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the American Civil War.
The point isn't "dictatorship good", but rather that sometimes in a crisis situation countries use methods that aren't good because they're the lesser evil. The Romans, as stated, hated the idea of a single man having sole power over them, but still recognized that wartime necessity may require it, so they wrote laws allowing the Senate to make someone a Dictator on a year-by-year term should Rome be in danger. By the same token the US President is allowed to assume wider power in times of war or rebellion (as Lincoln would do, and later Wilson and FDR), and it's why Parliament voted "emergency powers" to HM Government when the World Wars broke out. Nobody ever wants to give such power to any person or even persons, but when the nation's in danger, sometimes such measures are required.
The point isn't "dictatorship good", but rather that sometimes in a crisis situation countries use methods that aren't good because they're the lesser evil. The Romans, as stated, hated the idea of a single man having sole power over them, but still recognized that wartime necessity may require it, so they wrote laws allowing the Senate to make someone a Dictator on a year-by-year term should Rome be in danger. By the same token the US President is allowed to assume wider power in times of war or rebellion (as Lincoln would do, and later Wilson and FDR), and it's why Parliament voted "emergency powers" to HM Government when the World Wars broke out. Nobody ever wants to give such power to any person or even persons, but when the nation's in danger, sometimes such measures are required.
They think "Communism isn't the necessary evil, it's the necessary good, and everyone who opposes our ideology is EVIL!!1!"
If your a socialist, a communist then maybe Pincochet offers a good lesson and that lesson is this.
There are lines and boundries the people of your land are not toys for you to play with and those lines of morality and decency that you scoff at are the things that protect you, if you cross those lines in the name of your revolution then yes society can and will go into a very dark place.
So be civialized and don't go crazy and don't force society to go to those extremes to stop you.
There are lines and boundries the people of your land are not toys for you to play with and those lines of morality and decency that you scoff at are the things that protect you, if you cross those lines in the name of your revolution then yes society can and will go into a very dark place.
So be civialized and don't go crazy and don't force society to go to those extremes to stop you.