Nothing particularly concrete.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
It appears Pinochet killed roughly 2,000- 3,000 people over 15 years.
Chavez seems to be every bit as paranoid as the typical South American dictator and more egotistical. Plus since he started out as being popular, I think fall from popularity will be even more painful. I figure killing 200-300 people a year for the next decade or so, shouldn't that tough to pull off. The occasional political murder, and couple of atrocities in villages that harbor the opposition. The bummer for Chavez (and possible salvation for the people of Venezuela) the internet will make it harder for him to keep it all secret.
We've seen I think what, 2 or 3 accusations of political murder so far? I don't know where you're getting this.
If you think it being public knowledge is a downside for liquidationist dictators you should read about them more.
An ironic statement considering the last "Khmer Rouge scale atrocity" (the genocidal death of over 2 million people) took place... in the US during the Native American wars.
Everything in Latin America in the last 200 years is small potatoes in comparison.
It's disingenuous to compare the America of the 19th century with the America of the 21st. This America, for example, has a black president.
Your statement is also in error, since there's at least one example of genocide prior to the Khmer Rouge but since the killing of Native Americans –- the Holocaust.
And we've made at least one effort recently, in the Baltic states, to deliberately prevent such things from occurring.
But the statement Lum was responding to was limited to genocides in the Americas.
The last big genocide committed in the Americas was committed by the US government. I don't feel particularly guilty about it, as it was a long time ago, and it was horrible. Not really sure why Lum brought it up.
You know, each paragraph of yours has a key error. I suppose I could just ignore it, but what the hey.
I simply listed the last "Khmer Rouge scale atrocity" that took place *in the Americas*. One would hope we no longer are the sort of nation that casually annihilates ethnic groups for purposes of colonization, but that's entirely beside the point ('would we let 'another Khmer Rouge scale atrocity happen in the Americas').
There are a great many examples of genocide in the past 200 years. There are even a few examples in the past decade. Again, entirely beside the point of 'atrocities in the Americas'.
lolwut? I think you've confused the word "Baltic" with something else, unless there's examples of genocidal ethnic cleansing in Lithuania being hidden from the world...
To point out the fundamental absurdity of comparing either Chavez or Pinochet to Pol Pot.
That's something I hadn't noticed in the conversation. I agree it's outlandish to compare Pinochet to Pol Pot.
Ahhh... OK, my mistake. Somehow just parsed that part of the sentence out. Both times. :)
Of course, but I wasn't about to list all of 'em. Again, I didn't realize you were restricting yourself to "within the Americas." That said... it's still disingenuous to compare the America of today to the America of the 19th century.There are a great many examples of genocide in the past 200 years. There are even a few examples in the past decade. Again, entirely beside the point of 'atrocities in the Americas'.
Ahhhahahahahahaha... Whoops. I meant "Balkans."lolwut? I think you've confused the word "Baltic" with something else, unless there's examples of genocidal ethnic cleansing in Lithuania being hidden from the world...
I blame jet lag. And too much coffee.
Still, I don't see the "irony" of the situation at all; preventing atrocities has been more of a pillar of US foreign policy than the Monroe doctrine has at least within my lifetime. The "in the Americas" in Strollen's comment seemed to be a throwaway qualifier when taken out of context (although when reading his whole post, it's clear he was comparing Pinochet to the Khmer Rouge). The only thing off is that Strollen thought they were comparable.
Pinochet's murders are small time in terms of major 20th century genocides, and not even the most significant in the Americas. That "title" goes to Papa Doc Duvalier (ironic given current events), who is believed to have caused the death of between 30-60,000 Haitians.
I don't see any reason to think Chavez is heading down that road, though I could see Pinochet level stuff.
I read today that Chavez is gonna team up with Heavy D on his comeback album.
There has not been a single US military intervention for the purpose of preventing genocide, with the very arguable exceptions of Bosnia (years late) and Kosovo.
There have been dozens of genocides that the US did nothing to address.
So, yeah, not quite a 'pillar of US foreign policy'.
They did address that genocide in the Philippines.
And by address, I mean commit.
Chavez's daughter starts a meme:
http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post...celevrity-meme
The early videos are funny:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xSgaJQ6tVQ
(in Spanish but pictures worth it)
Well, at least unlike a certain other autocrat he's not yet up to assassinating his enemies by radioactive poisoning in a foreign capital.
Can't be too critical of him in Europe mind you, since we need his gas. Oh wait, Chavez is sitting on oil revenues. Sigh.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote