Here he is https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/3c/0c/923c0cc2cefc22940c44edbba3a3eae6.jpg

Hahaha. Chilean freedom or the despotism of right wing neo-liberalism? Pinochet was a criminal.

How was Africa purposefully ruined while South Korea was not?[i/]

Just how was S. Korea ruined?

I see your choice case as usual is some country messed up by your great 'race'. Do you know anything about Haiti? Or why it's the way it is?

The Great White Man as I like to call them, brought enslaved Africans to slave away to feed his great white stomach and fill his coffers. Then they got overthrown. Then the US of A decided they'd continue their great white man policy of intervening throughout Latin America. Viola when Haiti needed help the most the great white man turned the other way.

Sit on your high horse and assume race has everything to do with national development. It has nothing to do with it and everything to do with political intervention.

Here's a hint why. Until the UN the nation-state didn't exist in the form it does apart from mainly in Europe. The rest of the damn world was being exploited by the great white man and his great benevolent measures. Expecting 1000 year independent level of development in nations who are pretty much torn apart and continue to do be so shows just how skewed judgment is.

But hey race right ? All to do with might makes right.
Cue the claptrap about how its all rational and how whites automatically this that:

You can't know whether nobody cares, I suggest you think before you write something. I just don't understand why you would write so much bullshit, and it's a daily routine, which is even worse! Why don't you just have some sex with a horny milf? Maybe you'll get cured afterwards.

1. Japan had US involvement post WWII. Heightened tensions due to the Cold War meant that a regional power was needed to offset China

2. Israel secured its independence, once again, due to European involvement.

3. India's infrastructure existed due to the British. But, importantly prior to any European involvement their culture flourished and their rule socially and culturally was independent. Importantly, no slavery existed on the scale of Africa.

4. Same for China. Deterrent against USSR + relative peace for major countries during the Cold War enabled it.

Nobody will care if any group is exterminated so you'd better try to protect yourself from extermination. Nobody will pity you if you are gone. Get it?

I care about the Armenians the Holodomor victims in Ukraine, the Holocaust victims, the Cambodian genocide and the Rwandan genocide. I certainly give a damn about Bosnia.

You know why ? Because they all resulted in gross negligence of politicians and human failure. Nothing to do with how 'strong' or how 'weak' they were. Everything to do with the power of ideology. Might can't make right. Teaching, understanding, reflection can.

Edited 5/21/2017 14:06:27

Hahaha. Chilean freedom or the despotism of right wing neo-liberalism? Pinochet was a criminal.

Uh. As much of a genocidal freak as Pinochet was, he was - on the long term - good for Chile.

He shut down an unimaginable amount of drug dealing operations on their early stages. Chile has a LOT of unpatrolled coast to export, so it was the druggy's dreamland back then.

Although his helicopter tosses are usually discussed publicly when done to left wing activists, a surprisingly large part of it was actually killing actual criminals, such as murderers, drug dealers and human traffickers. The result is that Chile has never fallen to large scale drug traffic.

In fact, the guy who convinced Pablo Escobar of starting a cocaine enterprise was a chilean man who escaped after his crew was massacred.

He was by most means a bad leader, and definetely not a bastion of freedom as the OP mentioned, but his involvement in exterminating crime through military force knocked the chilean crime rates to first-world ones, which is still true to this day. Given how it's neighbors' crime rates are, I can't help but agree to an extent that the Pinochet government saved lives on the long run.

Usually those who lost wars such as Germany and Japan aren't that much worse off in the long run.

2 words: Marshall Plan

You can't know that.

For only ALLAAH has knowledge of the unseen.

Given how it's neighbors' crime rates are, I can't help but agree to an extent that the Pinochet government saved lives on the long run.

Yes, extra judicial slaughter is wise isn't it? The ends justify the means. How very Machiavellian.


You just don't get it do you Tabby? My purpose is to point out there isn't a scientific rational solution to the ills of the world. History nor politics can redeem anyone but probably condemns everyone. There are no winners, no victors. The best one can hope is to recognize the ills and work towards ending that.

Not, as you would have some ridiculous notion of 'life sucks suck it up might makes right' policy. That's the primary root cause of all evil within the world.

Oh wait, all you saw in that was, the white man and the high IQ can and should cause its their apparent right.

The logic of it all.

Yes, extra judicial slaughter is wise isn't it? The ends justify the means. How very Machiavellian.

When their neighbors' biggest cities see deaths/year ratios comparable to that of Syrian mid-war cities (with Rio seeing more deaths/year than Aleppo itself), yes, it's very justifiable.

With a murder rate of 3 per 100000 Chile is the single safest south american country. 550 murders/year is their average recently. When compared to Colombia - the drug haven after Pinochet's kills - who has 24 per 100000 (8 times higher!), the murders/year in Chile would be comparable to 550 x 8 = 4400.

4400 - 550 = 3850 <--- numbers of murders/year avoided on the long run by the Pinochet government. The estimates suggest around 30k-40k people died due to Pinochet's actions. Assuming 40k:

40000/3850 = 10.3896103896

In little less than 10 years and 5 months, the deaths caused directly by Pinochet have saved the lives of the same amount of citizens. That, may I add, is in fact very pessimistic, since a good chunk of said deaths were, as mentioned before, actual criminals, some violent (murderers/rapists), some not as much (muggers), for Pinochet had a zero-tolerance policy towards criminals.

---

As harsh as it may seem, the constant fear and the eternally locked-down streets in many south american cities are an awful sight, the likes of which you're likely never going to experience; I can tell I'd rather have a maniacal dictator with severe death penalty over our current status and criminality.

Not to say Pinochet was a hero - he wasn't - but he did do something to weaken the regional crime, which automatically puts him several levels ahead of most politicians down here.

but like you said, they moved elsewhere, so it's not worth it since folk are dying, it's just elsewhere.

We wuz kangs n shiet