"Tom Sherman" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
> > The number of murders that have been documented against Pinochet are in
the
> > hundreds rather than the thousands, but lets assume 3,000. A couple of
> > points:
> >
> > 1. That number pales in comparison to the number of people murdered
under
> > dictatorships of the left, which all-tolled in the twentieth century
number
> > well over 100 million (over 30 million under Stalin alone).
>
> In certain cases, I believe the name and professed ideology of the
> system is unimportant. Stalin, ******, Pol Pot, etc. can be considered
> criminally insane, and their actions represent the worst of a deranged
> personality and not the tenants of any particular political system. We
> could therefore consider Mussolini and Franco, but not ****** to be
> representative of Fascism; and Lenin, Mao, and Castro but not Stalin and
> Pol Pot to be representative of Communism.
Mr. Tom is completely mistaken about this. Communism was tried repeatedly by
the most serious men the world has ever known. It failed not because of
tyrants, but because it was a flawed ideology. All those tyrants Mr. Tom
mentions above were the end result of a failed ideology. His pitiful attempt
to separate out certain tyrants from one another is laughable in the
extreme. Mao may have been the greatest killer of all time, and Lenin was as
deranged as it is possible to get. But their ideologies made them that way.
I charge Mr. Tom with being nothing but an apologist for the worst killers
the world has ever known.
By the way, Mussolini and Franco were probably as deranged or not as ******.
Fascism had many leftist elements to its ideology and I do not consider it
all that different from Communism. The mortal enemy of both were the
democracies of the West.
And finally, ideology is always of the utmost importance. All those tyrants
above were true believers, ****** maybe more so than any of the others. To
say that any of these tyrants were not intimately connected to their
ideologies is the most insane thing I have ever read. Stalin and Mao killed
tens of millions in the name of their ideology. Now maybe you began to see
why I hold the left in such contempt.
> > 2. The operation itself was proposed and carried out *during a global
war*
> > with the above forces, which at the time had enslaved another 100
million
> > people in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
>
> But Salvador Allende won a democratic election in Chile, as opposed to
> being installed during a violent revolution. This makes outside
> interference to remove him and his government profoundly undemocratic
> and immoral if you consider democratic governance to be a right.
Kissinger was right and Mr. Tom is wrong (as usual). Who needs a Chile in
the Western Hemisphere aligned with the arch enemy of mankind, the Soviet
Union? It is more important that America safeguard its own security than
that a communist government be permitted to come to power in Chile
regardless of any election. It may be that the people of Chile were too
stupid to know what they were getting. We in effect saved them from
themselves (if in fact it were a true and free election at all - but who is
going to look up this kind of **** at this late date).
> > 3. There were lots of similar operations and policies aimed at "balance
of
> > power" and dictated by a "realist foreign policy" that had no interest
in
> > promoting democracy, and that is currently in an internal war with those
> > wishing to spread the franchise of democracy for security reasons. Most
of
> > these "realist" foreign policy professionals have adopted the racist
> > position that Arabs are unfit for democracy and that we should therefore
> > simply appoint a strong man, a Pinochet if you like, in Iraq... and
leave.
> > They are also the primary advisors to John Kerry.
>
> The road to Hell is paved with realist intentions. Immoral actions are
> still immoral, even if the ultimate goal is a laudable one.
The greater good always takes precedence over any lesser good. See, I can be
a stupid moralist too when it suits my purpose. What would Mr. Tom know
about ultimate goals, unless they are communist and/or leftist goals.
> > Which leads me to a couple of questions:
> >
> > 1. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it involves a
rightist
> > dictator, and never if it involves a (usually far more murderous)
leftist
> > dictator?
>
> Please show one example where I have condoned autocracy of any type.
> This will be a futile task, since the above question has a false premise.
I believe you are a supporter of the Castro government which is known to be
murderous and highly autocratic. I suspect you supported the Sandanistas
too. And the leftists in San Salvador. But here is a guy who is always
complaining about ****** and never complaining about Stalin, at least not in
the same breath . Why is that I wonder if he is not in sympathy with the
left, no matter how murderous they are and no matter how autocratic they
are. The next time you mention ******, be sure to throw in Stalin too, why
don't you? The next time you mention fascism, be sure to throw in communism
too, why don't you. Then maybe you will have some credibility instead of
always coming across like the left wing wacko nut that you are.
> "Communist" autocracies in most cases have had the advantage of at least
> providing for the basic needs of all people, while most fascist
> governments pander to the wealthy elite’s while the masses suffer from
> abject poverty.
Now I have heard everything! No one has ever suffered more in the history of
the world than those living under left wing ideologies. ****** at least had
the virtue of killing mostly non-Germans. Stalin killed mostly his own
people. And so did Mao. And so do all leftists. That is what their ideology
leads them to do. They all end up murderers because there ideology leaves
them no choice when they cannot coerce human nature into their crazy mold.
If Mr. Sherman were running things under his leftist ideology, he would end
up murdering people too. There is no other way when you want to make
everyone equal. Mr. Tom and all leftists do not have a clue about human
nature.
> > 2. And most significantly (and I really want an answer to this one), why
do
> > you now support the same foreign policy position in Iraq that you
disdained
> > almost 30 years ago in Chile?
>
> Yet another question with a false premise. My position on Iraq was that
> the UN should have demanded a large, PERMANENT presence of weapons
> inspectors in Iraq as long as Hussein and his ilk were in power in Iraq,
> backed by force if necessary. Since from the fall of 2002 to the time
> the UN withdrew its inspectors due to the immanent US invasion, Hussein
> acceded to that demand. Therefore, the US invasion at the time it
> occurred was unnecessary and immoral.
We could not have maintain our pre-war position there indefinitely. It was
bound to fail eventually, as in fact in did fail. Mr. Tom's way would leave
us right back where we were with a steadily deteriorating situation. His
solution is no solution at all. Those damn inspectors couldn't find their
own asses.
> How the above position has any similarity to the position that the US
> should not have interfered with the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Chilean
> government of Salvador Allende is beyond me.
In order to prevent World Communism as represented by the Soviet Union from
achieving an eventual victory and enslaving the world - you idiot!
--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota
