Why is it that Pinochet can kill tens of thousands of his own people and still be called a "great friend of the USA" and a "strong ally in Latin America", yet Saddam who is a mere beginner in the genocide stakes, kills around 8000 of his own people is labelled as a muderous dictator by President Bush ?
Is it because Saddam didn't know the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner" or because Pinochet didn't have any oil ?
2006-12-10 10:11:44 · 8 answers · asked by old_man_blanco 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
both of them are douche-bags...
2006-12-10 10:13:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Obviously Saddam was not ousted because he killed iraqis, but because he was an enemy of the USA. The killing of Iraqis was only an excuse to make the cause noble. If he wasn't an enemy of the USA he could have killed 800.000 people and yet he would not be ousted, he would even receive an invitation to visit the White House. The Argentinian dictatorship was even more brutal than Pinochet's one, (killed 30.000, agains 3.000 by Pinochet) and was an ally of the US too.
2006-12-11 16:22:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pinochet didn't kill tens of thousands of his own people. Pinochet overthrew a democratically elected individual who started attacking democracy. The elected Communist first made steps to remove term limits, dissolved congress, and invited Soviets to join him in his government. It was clear to everyone that Chile would fall into a communist state if someone didn't do something about it. Thank heavens for Pinochet! He removed the communists from power, set up a modern democracy, removed all corruption for the government and police, and peacefully handed power back over to the people when he accomplished what he said he would do. The Chileans tried to elect him as president, however, he refused.
Your facts are terribly misinformed and your assumptions show your ignorance. It is always shocking to me to see people with such strong opinions, but know virtually nothing about the facts.
2006-12-12 14:46:48 · answer #3 · answered by AT 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First, Allende ruined the economy with 3000 percent inflation. Second, they were on the brink of stravation because of collectization of land. Third, the country close to civil war. Finally Pinochet was no saint, but he saved Chile from a Fidel style Cuba. Dictators of all forms most times are evil, but Pinochet saved the economy from total ruins. Saddam was more concerned about ethnic cleasning of people that did not like him much. Pinochet rule was out of necessity to save the country from civil unrest. Saddam was more concered about decoming a bully to his neighbors. History will be the judge of both men, but history will give a more consideration to Chiles economic and social stability than Saddam plundering of his own people.
2006-12-10 22:11:49 · answer #4 · answered by ram456456 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Pinochet was a fascist right wing dictator who did nothing but to do every single thing he was told by the US administration of his times. He was also lucky because Chile doesn't have any oil
2006-12-10 18:19:07 · answer #5 · answered by me 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The main reason is that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam. It had everything to do with Bush and his associates. What is the real reason? Profiteering, oil, power, greed, revenge? I don't know. I sincerely hope we all find out the truth and soon.
2006-12-10 18:48:09 · answer #6 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We helped them both gain power, and Pinochet was ousted by his own people with out our help, Saddem didnt know when to quit
2006-12-10 19:50:59 · answer #7 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam would win with a KO 30 seconds into the first round.
8000 killed... you really need to see your facts, or stop distorting them to attempt to make them fit your point.
Remember, only douchebags distort facts
2006-12-10 18:13:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋