"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
