>Right, let's just say that that is probably not the strongest argument you could have made.
Are many of those countries being run better now?
One of my older servants here in Guatemala used to speak fondly of the "genocidal" general Rios Montt. During his time, she said, things were so safe. If someone robbed you, say, grabbed a purse, he'd be shot on the spot! Even now, I hear people express desire for summary execution. They're just so sick of the shittiness of these countries that due process doesn't get consideration.
I don't think many of these countries are very capable of attacking the root problems (which seems to mostly be just sheer incompetence at every conceivable level). At least not on any useful timeframes. It's almost certainly a better deal for them to become protectorates/colonies of properly run countries. Maybe on a 50-year term.
It's fairly obvious you have no frame of reference to judge the people that elected this president, for better or for worse, and what conditions have led them to such measures.
You'd be surprised what thoughts enter your mind when you live in conditions with constant danger and stark prospects. But you'd have to have experienced it, which you obviously haven't.
Really, this whole thread is a testimony to how easy it is to slide into a dictatorship or fascism.
The only time when morality matters is when it is challenged. If you de-humanize others - no matter who - you are also de-humanizing yourself and that road leads fairly directly into hell.
I've spent enough time with people who spent time in those hells to recognize the prelude to one.
I strongly suggest you study up on the person of 'El Presidente' a little bit more before you come out in defense of this person. A couple of hours reading might sway you to the position that this person is going to cause absolutely nothing but trouble (and in fact, is already causing it).
I was merely mentioning that you might not win the argument with the way you were responding before.
> I strongly suggest you study up on the person of 'El Presidente' a little bit more before you come out in defense of this person.
I'm assuming here you're talking about some particular South American dictator, but perhaps you could elaborate?
Right, let's just say that that is probably not the strongest argument you could have made.
> Think of the war on drugs in the USA, which was a covert operation to kill blacks.
That's an interesting alternative reading. The 'war on drugs' was a misguided attempt at solving a societal problem through confrontational means. Roughly what the article is all about.
It's also an abject failure, and a textbook case of why these things do not work long term. Kill all the criminals is only a good idea if don't want to have a civilized country.
> No they are not. They earned the right to kill drug lords and junkies through democracy.
Ah ok. That makes them lily white.
> With all due respect did you read the article?
Yes. Now with the same respect: Did you study history? At all?
> This isn't some kind of evil tyrant, that guy earned his position through the electorate because he's been using that plan to do away with scum in his own city and it worked well. Citizens are looking forward to cleanse their country and that's what they'll do, I hope.
Oh, you hope. Well, I hope with you. But the fact is that rather than having a bunch of drug criminals and junkies we will now have a population with a large fraction involved in extra-judicial murder. That's not necessarily a preferably situation over the original one and it leaves in place the biggest problem the country had to begin with: corrupt government officials and police force.
See, when you tackle a problem you should tackle the root cause, not the symptoms.
> Sorry for the brevity as I am typing this from my mobile.
That's fine. I'm not sure more of it would make it any better.