Saturday, October 2, 2010

Play Simpson Hit And Run Online



"historic mandate" AND "THE PRINCIPLES THAT SUPPORT THE NATION
" By: Jorge Majfud (
Republic - Montevideo)
The speech of President of the Military Center of Uruguay, Manuel Fernandez, is part of the budgetary demands of the Uruguayan armed forces, one of the highest budgets in the world in percentage terms related to its population.
According to Fernandez, the Uruguayan society today "never exist as deep philosophical differences, ideological and political." When the general was in course of duty during the military dictatorship, there were many differences. In fact, those who thought differently and felt unable to speak or disappeared, why it was understood that time there were no differences neither deep nor of any kind.
But as a Manichean mindset can only see things one way or the other of an arbitrary line that someone with a strong voice and trembling hand traced on the floor separating good from evil, then those differences that any humane society mean diversity, automatically become "the population divided into two distinctly different sides." As in the military practices where there is always an imaginary enemy "clearly differentiated" the other side of the trench or wall, is advanced with a drum and the rhythm of a repeated speech, a pamphlet for school children (one of those were consuming every day in my elementary school during the dictatorship) that merges with philosophical reading when not sacred.
According to retired since 2005, "50.1 percent of the population is on one side and 49.9 percent other." What is another way of saying that his thinking "clearly defined" represents the almost-half of the country without political power. Which continues to be progress if we remember that in the 80's and 90's conservative presidents were elected by less than a third. Even were elected with less votes than the loser. Not to mention the presidents of the military dictatorship, who were elected by a handful of elected.
Referring to the current government of former Tupamaro José Mujica, the retired reported that "since March 2005 changed the rules to legitimately access a majority coalition government Marxist-Leninist." Still some soldiers have trouble with legitimacy? What rules changed? Does the previous democratic government was not legitimate or not legitimate change? "The legitimacy of the current President of Uruguay is as uncomfortable as it was the legitimate democratic government of Salvador Allende?

obviously was the president who changed Mujica. Not retired Fernández. His government is legitimate, among other things, because he resigned to "honor of arms" that are so affected some of the old guard military. Some of his "enemies" have experienced that as a slap in the face of history and are psychologically unable to cope.


Obviously, a Marxist-Leninist the President alone has the tools of critical analysis and not the practice, which is based on market rules in a more liberal than the same model 70 military and 80. Mujica what, if anything, is revolution without R, which hopefully can be synonymous with liberalism. Of maturity for some, betrayal others. For me, the power makes a proud and humble to others. I think the latter is the case of a rebel who took their mistakes and bad or seeks to be inclusive without thinking naively, like Lula in Brazil, the architect of the progress of a country. The mention of Marxism has the tone multi-seventies the cliché that served for any witch hunt. According to the retired, who directed the Armed Forces today are "enemy civilians." Mental structure prevents it from going beyond the dimensions of their training. In a democracy, usually the majority of the civilian population and civilians often choose to lead an institution that serves the country and not backwards. Even if a country decides to eliminate the armed forces, which is not the case of Uruguay, the population would be on your right. The existence of any public institution is subject to the interests of a people.

or not God created the armed forces created in the country.

General Artigas was a soldier by profession (subversive, it goes without saying) but not their montoneros. And all or most of the ideas that founded our country of the South "traditions" came from abroad, from Europe humanist and revolutionary America. Not picked up from a pitanguero and unfortunately our founders were, in some cases, very heroic but let's not very original ideas.

Since then, the country has been maintained by the daily efforts of its workers and its innovators. We will not exclude armed forces if you really fulfill a role. But the Army, from the old right, takes sectarian positions as some guilds, from the old left, who believe the essence of a people, a country without which there could exist.
not the alleged "dissolution of the Armed Forces" is "pure Leninist stamp." Will the retired general who invest better long hours of leisure to review military history, especially the history of antiwar movements. You can find Albert Einstein saying that the army is one of the worst diseases that created mankind, but never a Stalin.
According to Fernandez, the Armed Forces are the last frontier of the nation. Of the principles underpinning
Homeland. " "The armed forces contain and define a nation or is it vice versa? We have a nation without a country, but can we have a national army without a nation? "The principles that underpin Homeland", "included in the 70 and 80 kidnapping, torture, disappearance, propaganda and state terror? It included "all that" our traditions "and" historic mandate ", with all the emphasis that you put?
What "country" we are talking about? Why the repeated fallacies of the mortal armies in reserve, support of the nation and a plethora of other ideolexicons entrenched by repetition?
Do not the bakers' union the same right? "Bakers and dairy, the last frontier of the nation. Bakers and dairy forefront of the homeland." Why not? At least thanks eat them every day. And doctors, street cleaners, bus drivers, scientists, housewives and householders?
In the Middle Ages
invented the noble war to maintain its honor (hence the word 'nobility') and gather groups of thousands of peasants and workers (hence the "militia") as work and production were in the hands of the populace (hence "vulgar") and dishonored who needed it to survive. In peacetime, the vulgar and the noble work rested. In times of war, noble and ennobling the inhabitant of the villas are to villain, as the pawns defending the aristocracy in chess, died in front, without honor.
Since then things have changed. Others less so. A poor country tends to have poor institutions. Education, health and defense are often poor. To leave his economic and mental poverty is accepted that a poor country get to have a rich education and health. It would be a curious claim that a poor country should have a rich military out of their poverty. It would be foolish, foolish. But in countries fools, fools, that's the rule.
Posted by admin at 3:11 PM

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)