I just love that Autopista Duarte.....I just love that we have a very forested country..... I'm sure I would love Parque Mirador Sur although I have not been there. I have seen both sides of the coin.....guess what I still think Balaguer was a despot who was ultimately responsible for political murders while in power.
Some of us just happen to put value in something called ethics and morality.
In that case, every leader on earth who has been hailed as something good or great doesn't deserve to be judged such.
Case in point, we got Asopao who "hates" Balaguer, but feels at "peace" with M?ximo Gomez.
Please show me which one of the two respected human life to the point of not a single soul being killed either in their name, by their own hands, or under their leadership?
Why is it ok for M?ximo Gomez to receive a good image, despite killing people in his endevours in the DR and in Cuba while people cast the end of the stick to people like Balaguer, who also killed people?
I really don't understand the logic of such, since killing people is killing people regardless.
Or, maybe, it's only morally justifiable to kill people if its in your best interest? Maybe that's it! That certainly explains why a military soldier is given a honors while a delincuent is given the end of the stick, despite the fact that both murdered another human being with their hands.
Do you think the modern lifestyle middle class and upper class people (including DR1ers) living across the world is a lifestyle that is based on holding hands and singing cumbaya?
Do you know how many people had to killed in order for everyone who lives at least a middle class life to be able to do so?
From the conquest during colonial times and the massacre of natives to the World Wars fought in Europe and Asia. Regardless for the reason, it's all paid for in blood.
What's the difference? The reasoning? The logic? The belief of us vs. them?
Can you honestly say that you would attempt to justify the killing of one human being over another, depending on the "circumstances"?
If killing another human being is wrong, if denying others what you yourself would not like to be denied is wrong, then why is it OK to do it to some or for some reasons and not for others?
Read this carefully and re-read it if you have to.
Modern civilization is based on the suffering of millions of people. Without it, what we call modernization and modern western life or "decent" living would not had occured.
Re-read the history of any country you want without taking sides and without attempting to justify why it's ok to kill at times and not at others and you will realize that every leader you know, from the one you hold as heroes to the one's you hold as despots killed PEOPLE either directly or indirectly.
Societies do benefit from these horrible acts from their leaders. Plenty of Chileans chastise Pinochet, but few are willing to give up the modern comforts that Pinochet's actions eventually gave many Chileans. It's a cold hard truth most people are not willing to accept, because most people want to believe that modern life is good and that good things happen to good people and most people want to think of themselves as good people.
But, the sun cannot be blocked with a finger!
The truth is that everything we know as modern is paid for in more than dollars and cent, it's paid for in blood, coercion, oppresion.
Well then, why are some leaders considered better than others when they all kill and infuse suffering on other people?
I'll tell you why, because the actions of some leaders benefits us and when that happens, we tend to look the other way when it comes to the nitty gritty of the reality.
Some people love George Bush because he has stabilized the U.S. economy in a time when the economy was almost certain to collapse, especially after 9/11. Others hate him because of the millions of people being killed and who have been killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Regardless where people stand, George Bush continues to be George Bush, but he killed many people.
The British forced the Chinese to accept Opium and the Brits became the biggest drug dealers in the world for a time.
The Americans unjustifiably invaded Mexico and through blood and greed for more land, secured half of Mexico's land as the U.S. West, paid for in dollars, cents, and tons of blood.
And all of that led to another and to another and to another to this, what we got today.
Why then are people more accepting of one politician over another? Of one hero over another? Why?
I don't deny the wrong doings of Balaguer, but I don't forgo credit where he should be credited!
-NALs
