| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Bush's approval rating is 30% that means the vast majority of Americans oppose him, so should Britain pay for a coup to overthrow him and put someone elese [sic] in power? |
Interesting analogy. Let us explore it, shall we?
You ask whether Britain should find and encourage local dissidents like R.S. Refugee or EFL Trainer and give them money, advice, or weapons, not to mention promises of recognition, etc., if they succeeded in overthrowing the W. Bush Administration and establishing a pro-British govt in its place.
For your analogy to fit the Chilean fact pattern, the W. Bush Administration would have to be markedly and hystrionically anti-British. The W. Bush Administration would have to openly side with Britain's archenemy. And the W. Bush Administration would have to nationalize all British investments in the United States and not only refuse compensation, but demand additional payment in back taxes from said corporations -- just as Allende did in the 1970s.
So, upon closer examination, I do not believe that your analogy is appropriate after all, Octavius. And, moreover, I do not refer to Allende's standing in the polls but the elections themselves...
Besides, once upon a time the United States did side with Britain's archenemy in what was, in its time, a global conflict. And I believe Britain responded... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK change Britain to Iran and the analogy is perfect. So let's hope the thinking democrats of Iran get the stones to throw Bush out.
BTW Gopher, you and I have clashed over this before. I am not ever going to change my mind and I don't expect you to either, but I do enjoy the banter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm, Let's see:
Chavez-democratically elected
Allende-democratically elected
Adolph Hitler-democratically elected
Perhaps if the other two had been bumped off early the world would be a better place.
However, what we do KNOW is that when Leftists get into power people tend to die in VERY large numbers. Pinochet saved Chile from the fate that the Russians, Eastern Europeans, North Koreans, Chinese and Cubans have suffered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
Adolph Hitler-democratically elected |
An off-topic thread killer, but...
For one, Hitler wasn't truly elected in a democratic fashion.
Secondly, he wasn't democratically elected in Poland, Czechoslavakia, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmmm maybe you're right. When American and European strongmen "take power" there's very little killing. Maybe we should ask some Kurds or Africans about that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adolf Hitler's party, the Nazis won the election in 1933. Under the system in Germany at the time he became Chancellor. Had he been killed as Allende had been, NO SECOND WORLD WAR. Who knows what damage that red would have done. Time to open another bottle of cab and drink another toast to the man who saved Chile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Adolf Hitler's party, the Nazis won the election in 1933. |
Not really. Depending on your definition of "won".
| Quote: |
| Under the system in Germany at the time he became Chancellor. Had he been killed as Allende had been, NO SECOND WORLD WAR. |
Maybe, maybe not. What ifs are a tricky thing. Any number of things could have "prevented" (in a purely hypothetical sense) WWII.
| Quote: |
| Who knows what damage that red would have done. Time to open another bottle of cab and drink another toast to the man who saved Chile. |
Yeah, who knows. We do know what damage Pinochet did though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| Had he been killed as Allende had been... |
Correction: he suicided.
I think Allende harmed Chile. He was an irresponsible president and a bad politician.
On the other hand, I see no merit in what Pinochet did at all. And, at the end of the day, at least some Chilean military officers say the same thing. Pinochet was expected (by Washington and by the Chilean right and center) to overthrow Allende and then hold new elections, elections which would most probably have brought Frei and the Christian Democrats back into La Moneda. What he did instead is almost universally recognized (except for about a third of Chileans) as monstrous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
