Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (13200)	4/14/2003 9:11:14 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

You must have a lot of nerve to bring up Pinochet, who was practically put to power by YOUR country, because the US was not happy with the left-wing Allende and wanted to play "regime change". You have a lot of nerve claiming that, because the US didn't actively oppose the Chilean army overthrowing the socialist Allende government, that we "practically put Pinochet into power".. Using that logic, can't it be claimed that the US "practically put" these Turkish generals into power during those three coups? Allende appointed Pinochet, Zonder, betting that he could be "trusted" to remain neutral. But apparently Allende's agenda to rapidly socialize the economy, resulting in hyperinflation (500%), and economic contraction, was so disturbing to Pinochet that he took sides and overthrew him. Certainly Chile hadn't suffered such economic ruin under Eduardo Frei, of the PDC. And Allende was elected on 36.5% of the vote, which HARDLY represented a mandate to implement the kinds of economic changes he embarked upon. It was clear that Allende represented a RADICAL leftist policy, whereas Frei was implementing social change at a more gradual pace, but obviously not fast enough for the radical left (financed by the Soviets and Cubans). Allende alienated himself from the mainstream, and tried to drag Chile towards socialism, rather than coaxing it. He FORCED CHANGED, and led to his own downfall when it reached a point where the results of his policies became intolerable and destabilizing. workmall.com Can you imagine what would happen in ANY democratic nation, were there to be 500% hyperinflation? Can you honestly say that the Prince of Monaco wouldn't be required to step in personally were such hyperinflation being created by the policies of the council of government? Essentially, although at time brutally, Pinochet did the same thing Turkish General did.. Preserve the republic against internal and external threats, in this case economic ruin via external socialist influence The 1980 constitution of Chile which has outlawed totalitarianism, and the parties that advocate it strikes me as rather similar to that of Turkey: confinder.richmond.edu Nice summation by FAS on Chile: fas.org And thanks for making refresh my memory on the topic. Although I was more a student of the narco-terrorism of Colombia, Chile's coup was also something that I found rather interesting during my stint in college. I was certainly not a fan of Pinochet's often brutal means, but we can only guess at what would have occurred had Allende's disastrous economic policies been permitted to continue to the point where it erupted into outright civil war. Hawk

To: zonder who wrote (13200)	4/14/2003 9:56:50 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

That's it. It seems I AM wasting my time. Funny, I've been thinking the same thing... But all I have to do to demonstrate the "cult of personality" involving Ataturk is to refer to the Turkish constitution, where HIS NAME is directly referred to in that document in it's preamble. What other nation's constitution directly refers to a particular leader's name in it's constitution, thus forever enshrining the legacy of said leader in the very foundation of its creation, and citing his beliefs as the very underpinning of said document? Can any American envision the names of the John Hancock, Sam Adams, or George Washington being cited in its constitutional preamble?? The recognition that no protection shall be accorded to an activity contrary to Turkish national interests, the principle of the indivisibility of the existence of Turkey with its state and territory, Turkish historical and moral values or the nationalism, principles, reforms and modernism of Atatürk and that, as required by the principle of secularism, there shall be no interference whatsoever by sacred religious feelings in state affairs and politics; the acknowledgment that it is the birthright of every Turkish citizen to lead an honourable life and to develop his or her material and spiritual assets under the aegis of national culture, civilization and the rule of law, through the exercise of the fundamental rights and freedoms set forth in this Constitution in conformity with the requirements of equality and social justice; Or how black and white pictures which included him were retouched to show he ALONE, in color: cbc.ca His philosophy came to be known as the six 'arrows': nationalism, republicanism, secularism, populism, statism, reformism. He was the first Turk to receive a last name: Ataturk - father of the Turks. In 1938 he died, still in power. His cult was in full flower. Photos of him striding in military uniform through crowds were retouched. Ataturk walked in colour; all others were in black and white. The photos are still on sale. So come off it Zonder... Admit that the average Turks perception of Ataturk is a bit overboard. The very fact that we refer to him as Ataturk, and not Mustafa Kemal (HIS REAL NAME) is clear evidence of thus cult of personality that was formed around him, during and after his life... It's tantamount to Americans only referring to George Washington as "father of our country", rather than using his name. I can only imagine if the former Federal holiday "Washington's birthday" was called "Father of Our Country" day.. Why not tone down the indignation a notch or two... Whenever I hear someone state "I'm wasting my time" when someone presents logical and documented facts and opinions, it immediately indicates to me that they merely don't want to face inconvenient realities. And if you're perceiving that somehow I'm denigrating Kemal's place in Turkey's history, you're also sadly mistaken. Obviously he was a visionary who took some tremendous risks, and exercized tremendous will to reshape Turkey into a viable modern state. And for that, I applaud him. Just as maybe you might think about applauding Pinochet for doing what HE BELIEVED WAS NECESSARY to create the current economic and political stability in Chile. Because Kemal and his "Young Turks" were often just as brutal to those who opposed their goals of a secular Turkish state, Muslims, Armenians, and Christians alike.. And I thought this was interesting as well.. It seems Antonio Banderas turned down a role playing Ataturk in a movie that would have denied the "genocide": ahmp.org And another biographical site that should help tone down your exhuberant apparent deification of Kemal: guidedones.com Kemal was a man. A man with considerable will, powers of persuasion, and probably a good deal of luck. But he was just a man.. Just as George Washington was just a man (who had dentures made of wood.. :0) So forgive me if I don't stand in utter awe of Ataturk.. Hawk