NationStates Jolt Archive

...but justifies his coup and its aftermath.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184696.stm


Thoughts?

There are many, especially in the US, who will not only buy this argument, but support it vehemently.

And as always, they, and the argument itself, make me sick.

The ends justify the means...torture and death are okay as long as 'communism' was averted.

...but justifies his coup and its aftermath.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184696.stm


Thoughts?

Unsurprising. I can't imagine the psyche of a murderous dictator but surely they must believe that what they are doing is right?

Saddam, Bush, Osama, Blair all think what they're doing is right: why shouldn't Senor Pinochet...

"Taking responsibility" is not a speech-act.

There are only three ways for a public figure to take responsbility.

1) Kill himself

2) Plead guilty to a criminal charge

3) Resign

"He said they had prevented a political and economic crisis.

"Thanks to their courage and decision, Chile moved from the totalitarian threat to the full democracy which we restored and which all our compatriots enjoy."



Chile, moved from a socialist democracy, with undeniable economic problems, to a tolitarian state...full democracy only came when Pinochet, in his overweening arrogance believed that he was so supported that he could risk his power in an election.

He lost. Democracy was put on hold during his reign of terror.

The ends justify the means...torture and death are okay as long as 'communism' was averted.

A sick attitude, and one I have seen (unfortunately) all too often. IMO, torture and death are never okay.

A sick attitude, and one I have seen (unfortunately) all too often. IMO, torture and death are never okay.

You'll find many frothing patriots here, and on the street who will disagree. It's the only reason the US has been able to commit the atrocities (or support them) in the way they have.

And I blame THOSE people for giving the US a bad name...because there have always been those that fight that mentality, and they have at least managaged to reign in the abuse of power of the US.

The sickest thing is...you travel Chile and you will find rabid supporters of Pinochet, and then those that had loved ones taken from them...and the supporters spit in the faces of those who actually suffered because that suffering guaranteed them their life of privilege. Those supporters are as guilty as the man and his thugs themselves.

"He said they had prevented a political and economic crisis.

"Thanks to their courage and decision, Chile moved from the totalitarian threat to the full democracy which we restored and which all our compatriots enjoy."



Chile, moved from a socialist democracy, with undeniable economic problems, to a tolitarian state...full democracy only came when Pinochet, in his overweening arrogance believed that he was so supported that he could risk his power in an election.

He lost. Democracy was put on hold during his reign of terror.

At least he stepped down when he lost, unlike, say, Myanmar's military junta.

The sickest thing is...you travel Chile and you will find rabid supporters of Pinochet, and then those that had loved ones taken from them...and the supporters spit in the faces of those who actually suffered because that suffering guaranteed them their life of privilege. Those supporters are as guilty as the man and his thugs themselves.

Sad, but what can I say? The world's full of scum.

Just curious, but have you ever been to Chile?

Sad, but what can I say? The world's full of scum.

Just curious, but have you ever been to Chile?

A number of times. My husband is Chilean, and his uncle was disappeared, tortured and dumped into the sea. They told the family that he fled to Sweden (which many did at that time) but they never bought it. It was only about, oh, three years ago or so that they finally got documents letting them know when and where he died (without describing the how).

His children live here, and are some of the most scarred people I've ever met...their mother committed suicide after the father was taken.

So I hate Pinochet with a passion.

A number of times. My husband is Chilean, and his uncle was disappeared, tortured and dumped into the sea. They told the family that he fled to Sweden (which many did at that time) but they never bought it. It was only about, oh, three years ago or so that they finally got documents letting them know when and where he died (without describing the how).

His children live here, and are some of the most scarred people I've ever met...their mother committed suicide after the father was taken.

So I hate Pinochet with a passion.

I can't even imagine the hell his family must have gone through. :(

My deepest condolences.

Love how he takes 'full responsibility' for what happened, but yet refuses to stand trial. Suppose it's due to him being so arrogant as to believe every atrocity committed was necessary.
Maybe I'm too idealistic but I would have hoped as one nears death, one might become a bit more circumspect and understanding. But not in this case. Too much cognitive dissonance to overcome I guess.





(just waiting for MTAE to come in here and spout off. Should be worth a laugh or two).

Wasn't he trying to feign mental incompetence?

Wasn't he trying to feign mental incompetence?

I believe so.

"He said they had prevented a political and economic crisis.

"Thanks to their courage and decision, Chile moved from the totalitarian threat to the full democracy which we restored and which all our compatriots enjoy."



Chile, moved from a socialist democracy, with undeniable economic problems, to a tolitarian state...full democracy only came when Pinochet, in his overweening arrogance believed that he was so supported that he could risk his power in an election.

He lost. Democracy was put on hold during his reign of terror.Add in that the economic problems they had worsened until he moved toward a more nationally controlled (read socialist) economy. I hope they put his ass under the jail.

I can't even imagine the hell his family must have gone through. :(

My deepest condolences.
Thanks. It manifests itself in the oddest ways...aside from the obvious fear of authority that causes my in-laws to unquestioningly obey even a damn security guard (frustration!) and never complain to people working in official capacities...but my husband still cringes every time he hears a helicopter. They used to fly over the poor neighbourhoods at night (during curfew) and occasionally strafe an area that they suspected harboured anti-government forces.

Of course, there are those that imagine I'm making it up just so I can talk about Chile (Surf Shack made this accusation at one point):rolleyes:

But then again, they tend to be the type that argue 'the ends justify the means', so I don't really give their opinions much attention.

I believe so.

Well, not any more apparently.

Well, not any more apparently.

Oh, he goes for physical infirmities now. He has had various 'brushes with death' every time the possibility of a trial looms closer.

And besides, they've already hit him where it hurts...they seized his assets, and the assets of his family, and the very wound-opening inquiry into every minute detail of the coup and the dictatorship has severely tarnished his image not only at home, but internationally (thank you Spain).

Fuck him. Let him die a pathetic, broke and hated old man, living in a country run by a female president who was tortured herself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachelet), and whose father was one of the generals assasinated by Pinochet's thugs...and yet who does not lead Chile into a socialist revolt like he predicted, but rather towards reconciliation.

Add in that the economic problems they had worsened until he moved toward a more nationally controlled (read socialist) economy.

Source?

This is the eighth time I have tried to post. There is nothing I can say that is not filled with wrath and bitterness. he has stolen so many lives, a wave of exiles that can only be called a diaspora, the rapes and tortures, Jara's hands, Allende's false suicide, and the worst of all was the unflagging international support he received.

If it were up to me, I would find a far more sanguine method for him and his cadre to take responsibilty.

This is the eighth time I have tried to post. There is nothing I can say that is not filled with wrath and bitterness. he has stolen so many lives, a wave of exiles that can only be called a diaspora, the rapes and tortures, Jara's hands, Allende's false suicide, and the worst of all was the unflagging international support he received.

If it were up to me, I would find a far more sanguine method for him and his cadre to take responsibilty.

You have no proof Allende didn't commit suicide. I'm not saying he did or didn't, but no one knows for sure if he did. Personally, I doubt Pinochet killed him. He would not have wanted to make a martyr (although, he did incidentally end up making thousands of them, including Jara, as you mentioned).

Source?

I'm going to cut and paste from something I put together previously...sorry for the length.

To counter the myth of the ‘salvation of Chile by Pinochet’.

Many people credit Agusto Pinochet Urgarte with the ‘Salvation of Chile’, from the horrors of socialism. That he had a confirmed 3000 plus civilians disappeared, tortured, and murdered, and tens of thousands more confirmed tortured, is brushed away with the claim that Salvador Allende’s Chile would have been worse.

Pinochet’s crimes against humanity are, so these supporters argue, tempered by the economic success of Chile during his dictatorship, creating a South American powerhouse.

Let me debunk these notions. I’ll break this down, piece by piece.

Pinochet took power in a bloody coup on September 11, 1973. Between 1973 and 1989, Chile was the absolute model of a decentralised economy. Industries nationalized by Salvador Allende were privatised, and this privitisation continued on into the social sector. The Chicago School of Economics (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/chicago.htm) (free market libertarianism) was given free reign for 16 years in Chile in order to prove its economic model.

During those 16 years, economic growth was actually slower in Chile than in any other Latin American country. This lack of growth was by no means uniform. The GDP in Chile was average in the 60s, plummeted in the 70s (remember, Salvador Allende was only in power from 1971 – 1973, so this can not be blamed solely on him), and jumped substantially in the 80s and 90s.(1) The economy experienced major highs and major lows, and it is important to understand what was happening during those swings.

Overall, from 1960 – 2002, Chile experienced a 2.5% annual per capital GDP growth. This has outperformed all other Latin American countries. However, in the period from 1960 – 1980, 9 years of which were led by Pinochet, 3 by Allende, there was growth of only 1.6%, matched only be Venezuela, while most other nations were seeing record increases, Ecuador among the highest with 5.4%. From 1981 – 2002, Chile by far surpassed its peers with a rate of 3.2% compared to negative numbers in the neighbouring nations of Argentina, Bolivia and Peru. (2)


Chile’s main export to the world is copper. US companies owned almost all of Chile’s copper mines by the 60s. Eduardo Frei, president of Chile prior to Allende, attempted to nationalize these mines, but was blocked by the business community and failed. Allende succeeded where Frei had failed, nationalizing not only the copper industry, but also the banking industry, and other foreign-owned assets, sparking the resentment among Chile’s elites and US businessmen that eventually led to the coup.

Pinochet took the reins, but without an economic plan of his own. In 1975, inflation rose as high as 341%. He turned to a group of ‘Chicago Boys’ to extricate himself from his economic woes. From thereon in, they controlled the economy completely. The economic ‘shock treatment’ began.

Between 1974 and 1975, they managed to get inflation under control. However, at the same time, unemployment rose from 9.1% to 18.7%. Chile suffered the worst recession they’d had since the 30s. This was also a period of extreme political repression, matched only later when similar economic troubles hit the country in the ‘82.. The economic changes being wrought were not optional.

The ‘economic miracle’ often referred to when discussing Chile supposedly happened between 1978 and 1981. Chile’s economy grew at an average of 6.6% a year, a truly staggering amount. Foreign investment was a huge part of this as nearly all restrictions were lifted during this period. All but 25 of 507 state-owned enterprises were privitised during these years.

However, what is often not taken into account is the impact of the depression. Astounding economic growth did not mean that Chile was actually in a fantastic economic state…it was in essence regaining lost ground. A parallel the Great Depression suffered by the US in the 30s can be drawn. From growth rates (US) in the negatives from 1930 – 1934, to a positive growth rate of 14.1% in 1936, and yet it took many more years to get the economy back to pre-Depression levels.(3) The same was true in Chile.

So what powered this growth in Chile during the period between 1978 and 1981? Very simply, unemployed workers cut during the deep depression returned to work. ‘Growth’ in this sense was simply returning the economy to the state it had been in previous to the crash experienced directly following the coup.

“And even then, much of Chile's growth was artificial or fictitious. Between 1977 and 1981, 80 percent of Chile's growth was in the unproductive sectors of the economy, like marketing and financial services. Much of this was speculation attracted to Chile's phenomenally high interest rates, which, at 51 percent in 1977, were the highest in the world.

Chile's integration into the world market would leave it vulnerable to world market forces. The international recession that struck in 1982 hit Chile especially hard, harder than any other Latin American country. Not only did foreign capital and markets dry up, but Chile had to pay out stratospheric interest rates on its orgy of loans. Most analysts attribute the disaster both to external shocks and Chile's own deeply flawed economic policies. By 1983, Chile's economy was devastated, with unemployment soaring at one point to 34.6 percent — far worse than the U.S. Great Depression. Manufacturing production plunged 28 percent. (8) The country's biggest financial groups were in free fall, and would have collapsed completely without a massive bail-out by the state. (9) The Chicago boys resisted this measure until the situation became so critical they could not possibly avoid it.

The IMF offered loans to help Chile out of its desperate situation, but on strict conditions. Chile had to guarantee her entire foreign debt — an astounding sum of US$7.7 billion. The total bailout would cost 3 percent of Chile's GNP for each of three years. These costs were passed on to the taxpayers. It is interesting to note that when the economy was booming, profitable firms were privatized; when those firms failed, the costs of bailing them were socialized. In both cases, the rich were served. (10)

After the IMF loans came through, the Chilean economy began recovering in 1984. Again, it saw exceptionally high growth, averaging about 7.7 percent a year between 1986 and 1989. (11) But like the previous cycle, this was mostly due to actual growth, not potential growth. By 1989, the GDP per capita was still 6.1 percent below its 1981 level. (12)

So what was the record for the entire Pinochet regime? Between 1972 and 1987, the GNP per capita fell 6.4 percent. (13) In constant 1993 dollars, Chile's per capita GDP was over $3,600 in 1973. Even as late as 1993, however, this had recovered to only $3,170. (14) Only five Latin American countries did worse in per capita GDP during the Pinochet era (1974-1989)."(4)

Read that again. Despite years of record growth, the recessions, the loans, the debt…Chile did not experience significant growth during the ‘miracle years’.

Chile’s poverty rate in 1989 was a staggering 41.2%. The rich however, profited mightily during Pinochet’s rule. No other Latin American country had such income inequality during these years. Widespread unemployment kept wages down, and with no real state-funded social systems to provide for the unemployed or the poor, there was no ‘loss’ to the economy, except in production. The unemployment rate, overall, was worse in Chile than in any other Latin American nation. This loss in productivity is a major reason for the inability of the economy to truly outperform it’s neighbours in total overall growth.

The free reign given to the Chicago boys was backed up by a concerted war against the civilian population. Disappearances, tortures and murders were the worst during the recession of 1975 and 1982. There was no political freedom whatsoever. (Allende allowed even his worst detractors to vilify him on the radio). Labour unions were outlawed and only reinstituted once strict controls were in place.

The free-market policies of Pinochet’s Chile had other effects, such as on the environment.(5) A lack of environmental controls is a key aspect of free-market liberalisation. Santiago, the capital of Chile, is the 5th most polluted city in the world. Chile has extremely high mortality and sickness rates, beating out many of it’s neighbours.

Chile’s economy is still growing, but nonetheless, it lags behind most other Latin American nations. Profits from Chile’s industries flow outward into foreign pockets. Chile has one of the highest foreign debts in the world. The “Economic Miracle of Chile’ is a myth.(6)

Some will say that Salvador Allende’s Chile could have been worse. We have no way to tell, no way to know. What we do know is that the economic miracle was anything but, and in return for this false miracle, Chile suffers from a legacy of brutality, repression, and horror.


(1) http://www.gdnet.org/pdf/draft_country_studies/LACSummary.pdf
(2) http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/DesarrolloEconomico/5/LCG2255PI/lcg2255_i_V.pdf
(3) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
(4) http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
(5) http://www.foei.org/trade/activistguide/chile.htm
(6) http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/473159-1.html

anti-allende: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/chile/allende.htm
http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html#2D
hating them on both sides: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken89.html

*snip*

That's...more than I bargained for. Thanks a lot! :)

*gives Neesika a huge basket of cookies*

Source?

Many economists, with a certain validity, argue that Pinochet's regime was responsible for nothing less than an economic miracle for Chile.

This has been challenged by several other economists, and lately Pinochet's charges for tax evasion have caused some people to think they might want to take another look at the books.

Whatever. Of course a whole bunch of foreign companies invested in Chile. The government was shooting union leaders and anyone else who even talked about worker's rights. Nonexistant taxes, easily bribed officials; it was truly a free market. And to achieve that, all they had to was lock up all the people.

Fuck them. Line them up against the wall and teach them responsibilty from the barrel of a gun.

That's...more than I bargained for. Thanks a lot! :)

*gives Neesika a huge basket of cookies*

Thanks...I was getting tired of people tossing 'Pinochet was so good for the economy' at me.

It's like (on a less bloody scale) people holding Ralph Klein up as the reason for Alberta's prosperity, when in fact, Chile and Alberta simply have the luck to be rich in natural resources.

Many economists, with a certain validity, argue that Pinochet's regime was responsible for nothing less than an economic miracle for Chile.

This has been challenged by several other economists, and lately Pinochet's charges for tax evasion have caused some people to think they might want to take another look at the books.

Whatever. Of course a whole bunch of foreign companies invested in Chile. The government was shooting union leaders and anyone else who even talked about worker's rights. Nonexistant taxes, easily bribed officials; it was truly a free market. And to achieve that, all they had to was lock up all the people.

Fuck them. Line them up against the wall and teach them responsibilty from the barrel of a gun.

Sounds more like corporatism. But whatever his economic policies were, or whether or not they were successful, is irrelevant. The man is still a tyrant, worthy of punishment of the worst kind.

Thanks...I was getting tired of people tossing 'Pinochet was so good for the economy' at me.

"Good for the economy" is not a valid legitimization for Pinochet's brutality (nothing is).

Many economists, with a certain validity, argue that Pinochet's regime was responsible for nothing less than an economic miracle for Chile.

This has been challenged by several other economists, and lately Pinochet's charges for tax evasion have caused some people to think they might want to take another look at the books.

Whatever. Of course a whole bunch of foreign companies invested in Chile. The government was shooting union leaders and anyone else who even talked about worker's rights. Nonexistant taxes, easily bribed officials; it was truly a free market. And to achieve that, all they had to was lock up all the people.

Fuck them. Line them up against the wall and teach them responsibilty from the barrel of a gun.

It was the ultimate experiement in free-market liberalism. Total repression of human rights, (particularly labour rights) and free reign to take the most drastic economic measures. It's a perfect example of why 'totalitarianism' should not be used interchangeably with communism.

Ay, all this talk has me nostalgic for some Victor Jara and Violeta Parra :(

The American support for the Pinochet coup d'etat in Chile was based in a fear of the spread of Soviet influence to another nation in Latin America. It was an ill advised decision made by the most criminal administration in US history, as it was in its death throes from the Watergate affair.

The American support for the Pinochet coup d'etat in Chile was based in a fear of the spread of Soviet influence to another nation in Latin America. It was an ill advised decision made by the most criminal administration in US history, as it was in its death throes from the Watergate affair.

IMO, unless overthrowing a foreign government is never justified, unless it's an insane, genocidal regime. i.e., orchestrating a coup against Hitler would be fine, but against someone like Mossadegh would not.

The American support for the Pinochet coup d'etat in Chile was based in a fear of the spread of Soviet influence to another nation in Latin America.

The Soviet boogieman was used to justify everything the US did in Latin America from 1917 to 1990. At some point, it starts looking like the worst kind of apologetic bullshit.

You have no proof Allende didn't commit suicide. I'm not saying he did or didn't, but no one knows for sure if he did. Personally, I doubt Pinochet killed him. He would not have wanted to make a martyr (although, he did incidentally end up making thousands of them, including Jara, as you mentioned).

Regardless of who fired the bullet, Allende would still be alive on September 12th if the coup had never happened.

Regardless of who fired the bullet, Allende would still be alive on September 12th if the coup had never happened.

That's true.

The Soviet boogieman was used to justify everything the US did in Latin America from 1917 to 1990. At some point, it starts looking like the worst kind of apologetic bullshit.

No, we didn't start using that boogieman until circa 1954, with the Guatemalan coup.

No, we didn't start using that boogieman until circa 1954, with the Guatemalan coup.

That's not true. It was a regular line during the 1920s, used to justify US intervention in Nicaragua, for instance.

Regardless of who fired the bullet, Allende would still be alive on September 12th if the coup had never happened.
Meh, good riddance. I'd rather live under Pinochet and have to deal with commies "disappearing" than live in a socialist country where I'm starving to death because the money isnt worth enough to even wipe my ass with.

That's not true. It was a regular line during the 1920s, used to justify US intervention in Nicaragua, for instance.

I know we intervened a lot, but I doubt it was over communism. Got a source?

Meh, good riddance. I'd rather live under Pinochet and have to deal with commies "disappearing" than live in a socialist country where I'm starving to death because the money isnt worth enough to even wipe my ass with.

"Commies" like Neesika's uncle-in-law? -.-

Meh, good riddance. I'd rather live under Pinochet and have to deal with "commies" disappearing than live in a socialist country where I'm starving to death because the money isnt worth enough to even wipe my ass with.

If you had lived under Pinochet, you wouldn't say such <edited> things. Those "disappearing commies" were people with lives and families, you <edited>.

I will give you an example of what it was like living under Pinochet. The carabineros, or police, would plant some evidence on somebody. Then they would bring this person in and tell him they would torture him or his family if he did not get incriminating evidence on his friends. The they would let him go. Now if he can't find or make some evidence that will result in his friends being tortured and killed, then either he or his family will end up in the prison.

Now tell me, how is that better than buying bread with undervalued currency?

If you had lived under Pinochet, you wouldn't say such moronic things.
I think not. It says that Chile's population is divided 50/50 on whether Pinochet was good or bad. If I had lived under Pinochet, I would have been on the good "50"...along with half of the population.;)
"Commies" like Neesika's uncle-in-law? -.-
"Neesika" is an internet person. So for all we know, her uncle is really Humphry Bogart, and mine is Joseph Stalin.:rolleyes:

"Neesika" is an internet person. So for all we know, her uncle is really Humphry Bogart, and mine is Joseph Stalin.:rolleyes:

You can no more prove she is lying than I can prove she's telling the truth. Either way, your comment is totally uncalled for.

You can no more prove she is lying than I can prove she's telling the truth.
In which case we throw it out of the discussion.:)

I think not. It says that Chile's population is divided 50/50 on whether Pinochet was good or bad. If I had lived under Pinochet, I would have been on the good "50"...along with half of the population.;)

"Neesika" is an internet person. So for all we know, her uncle is really Humphry Bogart, and mine is Joseph Stalin.:rolleyes:

This statistic that you pulled out of nowhere, does it survey all the people killed by Pinochet? What about the ones that were tortured, did they get a chance to comment? How about the thousands of Chileans who are living abroad because they had to flee the country? Are they in your totally unsubstantiated survey?

And for all we know, you're a 13 year old kid who thinks Ayn Rand is cool.

Meh, good riddance. I'd rather live under Pinochet and have to deal with commies "disappearing" than live in a socialist country where I'm starving to death because the money isnt worth enough to even wipe my ass with.

This is the exact kind of apologist for torture, terror, genocide and general horrors I was referring to. Pathetic.

"Commies" like Neesika's uncle-in-law? -.-
Yeah, a student at a University.

Very dangerous those people who are learning to think for themselves.

This statistic that you pulled out of nowhere, does it survey all the people killed by Pinochet? What about the ones that were tortured, did they get a chance to comment? How about the thousands of Chileans who are living abroad because they had to flee the country? Are they in your totally unsubstantiated survey?

And for all we know, you're a 13 year old kid who thinks Ayn Rand is cool.
"Chileans remain deeply divided on his legacy. Many see him as a brutal dictator who ended democracy and led a regime characterized by torture and favoritism towards the rich, while others believe that he brought economic growth to Chile."


I simply took "deeply divided" to mean 50/50.

As for the ones that were tortured, well, they were the ones who were trying holding back the Chilean economy from expanding under Pinochet, and thus responsible for the starvation of the nation.

And for all we know, you're a 13 year old kid who thinks Ayn Rand is cool
17, and Ayn Rand *is* cool.:cool:

I simply took "deeply divided" to mean 50/50.


Yeah, that's pretty typical...one day you quote Nazi propaganda, the rest of the time you spend making unsubtantiated comments based on statistics you create to back yourself up.

All the while, totally immune to the evidence that proves your arguments wrong.

At least have the intellectual honesty to say, 'despite the facts, this is my opinion, and nothing, no proof to the contrary, is going to sway my opinion'.

Then we can give you the recognition you deserve (ignore you completely) and move on.

This is the exact kind of apologist for torture, terror, genocide and general horrors I was referring to. Pathetic.

Agreed.

As for the ones that were tortured, well, they were the ones who were trying holding back the Chilean economy from expanding under Pinochet, and thus responsible for the starvation of the nation.

What about people who were tortured (or worse) just for speaking their minds, or having dissenting thoughts?

Agreed.

One can only hope he grows up, and gets rid of his facination with totalitarianism, race-based politics and a belief that torture is justified practiced by people he agrees with.

Either that or he'll end up running for President:p

I know we intervened a lot, but I doubt it was over communism. Got a source?

Nothing I could find in a few minutes of searching but a mention in Eduardo Galeano's Century of the Wind. Most of the books I have here deal with post-WWII US intervention.

But if you doubt the degree to which US policy was (in propaganda terms anyway) influenced by anti-Communism long before World War II, you need to review your history. Consider the Red Scare and the US participation in the attempt to crush the Russian Revolution.

"Chileans remain deeply divided on his legacy. Many see him as a brutal dictator who ended democracy and led a regime characterized by torture and favoritism towards the rich, while others believe that he brought economic growth to Chile."

That sentence should read:Many see him as a brutal dictator who ended democracy and led a regime characterized by torture and favoritism towards the rich, while others believe that he also brought economic growth to Chile.

No one, except Kissinger and Thatcher, even attempts to dispute that he was a brutal tyrant, especially not 50% of the Chilean population.
As for the ones that were tortured, well, they were the ones who were trying holding back the Chilean economy from expanding under Pinochet, and thus responsible for the starvation of the nation.
This comment is simply trollish and not worth responding to.

17, and Ayn Rand *is* cool.
I see. I will not respond to you again until you post something intelligent.

One can only hope he grows up, and gets rid of his facination with totalitarianism, race-based politics and a belief that torture is justified practiced by people he agrees with.

Don't hold your breath. He defends Nazis, so defending Pinochet's death squads is a piss in the squalid bucket.

That, and he likes to troll you, Neesika, specifically. Ne pas mordre, s'il te plaît...

Yeah, that's pretty typical...one day you quote Nazi propaganda, the rest of the time you spend making unsubtantiated comments based on statistics you create to back yourself up.
First, it was in Swedish so ":rolleyes:" you very much. Second, "deeply divided" usually means something like split 50/50. :rolleyes:

Nothing I could find in a few minutes of searching but a mention in Eduardo Galeano's Century of the Wind. Most of the books I have here deal with post-WWII US intervention.

But if you doubt the degree to which US policy was (in propaganda terms anyway) influenced by anti-Communism long before World War II, you need to review your history. Consider the Red Scare and the US participation in the attempt to crush the Russian Revolution.

I was under the impression that before WWII, the US had to rely on straightforward application of the Monroe doctrine.

This would have been sticky during the Falklands war. Good thing communism was around to distract everyone.

Either that or he'll end up running for President:p
One day.:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Augusto_Pinochet_official_portrait.jpg

One day.:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Augusto_Pinochet_official_portrait.jpg

Tu vois, Neesika? Puisque je te l'ai dit. Il ne le vaut pas du tout. Pas de la moindre valeur qu'on puisse imaginer...

Don't hold your breath. He defends Nazis, so defending Pinochet's death squads is a piss in the squalid bucket.

That, and he likes to troll you, Neesika, specifically. Ne pas mordre, s'il te plaît...

Yes, I've learned...

And to Congo...here is a bit of information on US interventions in Latin America.

Timeline (http://www.zompist.com/latam.html)
You'll notice that economic interests heavily influenced interventions. Before the 'red' menace, was the menace of nationalism. In any case, I don't think that the underlying intent actually changed that much from the 1800s on...protecting US economic interests in the region.

Nothing I could find in a few minutes of searching but a mention in Eduardo Galeano's Century of the Wind. Most of the books I have here deal with post-WWII US intervention.

But if you doubt the degree to which US policy was (in propaganda terms anyway) influenced by anti-Communism long before World War II, you need to review your history. Consider the Red Scare and the US participation in the attempt to crush the Russian Revolution.

I never doubted that. I just have never read anything suggesting communism had anything to do with our (extensive) involvement in Latin America - pre-Cold War, anyway.

protecting US economic interests in the region.

Exactly.

And thanks for the link. :)

Tu vois, Neesika? Puisque je te l'ai dit. Il ne le vaut pas du tout. Pas de la moindre valeur qu'on puisse imaginer...

Meh, I stopped being interested in the opinions of 17 year olds when I stopped teaching;)

No one, except Kissinger and Thatcher, even attempts to dispute that he was a brutal tyrant

Except The atlantian islands ;)

He is facing indictments in two cases of human rights abuses and tax evasion.

Y'know, I could live with the human rights abuses, but damn, that tax evasion pisses me off!

Meh, I stopped being interested in the opinions of 17 year olds when I stopped teaching;)

Même si on pourrait douter de son âge parfois, mais c'est pas trop important, c'est vrai. Ca me decoit plus, ce comportement, parce que j'ai appris de m'en foutre aussi. :)

The Soviet boogieman was used to justify everything the US did in Latin America from 1917 to 1990. At some point, it starts looking like the worst kind of apologetic bullshit.

That's because the US government was actually afraid of the Soviet boogeyman. That the tactics it used were heavy handed and typically unjustified are not surprising. Misunderstanding and overestimation were hallmarks of the US-USSR relationship, and this has more to do with each countries individual psychology than some boogeyman on either side.

I know we intervened a lot, but I doubt it was over communism. Got a source?

The reasoning Coolidge gave had to do with the increasing levels of chaos in Nicaraugua, and the threat it posed to American citizens and property in the country from that chaos, and the retribution that the Chamorro government was making use of. If anything, it was the 1920's version of a "peacekeeping" mission. Of course, because you don't believe in property you'll reject this explanation, but for the vast bulk of humanity who does believe in the right to property it might suffice.

Neesika, Fass, cessez le bavardage au sujet de moi. Vous agissez comme si je ne vous comprend pas.

The reasoning Coolidge gave had to do with the increasing levels of chaos in Nicaraugua, and the threat it posed to American citizens and property in the country from that chaos, and the retribution that the Chamorro government was making use of. If anything, it was the 1920's version of a "peacekeeping" mission. Of course, because you don't believe in property you'll reject this explanation, but for the vast bulk of humanity who does believe in the right to property it might suffice.

Uh...you have me mixed up with someone else. I do believe in the right to property. Check my sig.

The reasoning Coolidge gave had to do with the increasing levels of chaos in Nicaraugua, and the threat it posed to American citizens and property in the country from that chaos, and the retribution that the Chamorro government was making use of.

And when they made Sandino out to be a Bolshevik thug, they were just trying to indicate how chaotic he was?

Of course, because you don't believe in property you'll reject this explanation,

My position is more complicated than that, as you would know if you had ever paid attention beyond the opening portions of my argument.

And when they made Sandino out to be a Bolshevik thug, they were just trying to indicate how chaotic he was?

Sandino was a thug. Originally, his intent was noble - to drive out U.S. "imperialists," but after the U.S. Marines withdrew, he no longer could use U.S. "imperialism" as an excuse. He was a common bandit and a power hungry lunatic who committed (and condoned) atrocities against innocent people.

Neesika, Fass, Cessez le bavardage au sujet de moi. Vous agissez comme si je ne vous comprend pas.

Puisque votre francais est comme celui qui serait parlé par une vache espagnole, il nous faudra ne faire qu'agir ainsi...

Sandino was a thug. Originally, his intent was noble - to drive out U.S. "imperialists," but after the U.S. Marines withdrew, he no longer could use U.S. "imperialism" as an excuse.

An excuse for what?

He was a common bandit and a power hungry lunatic who committed (and condoned) atrocities against innocent people.

Really? Which ones?

An excuse for what?

An excuse for waging war.

Really? Which ones?

Nicaraguans who didn't sympathize with him.

Atlantic Whatever... Read. Grow up. Learn. Torture is not fun. Neither is totalitarianism.

Neesika, don't let him troll you. Know that you are right, and that those in the world that are sane are on your side.

As for Pinochet, I wish him a very long life...

considering for one moment that his body is in full decay, and that, gradually, it will become a situation in which each minute is more and more torment, all the while he watches his name going to the mud where it belongs, his accounts being frozen and his body getting as rotten as his soul, while his spirit is unable to leave for the relief of death.

Live long, Pinochet, and suffer every last minute of it.

Puisque votre francais est comme celui qui serait parlé par une vache espagnole, il nous faudra ne faire qu'agir ainsi...
:D Une vache espagnole!?.......Il n'est pas gentil le parler en autres langues quand je ne le peux pas comprend.....

...but justifies his coup and its aftermath.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184696.stm


Thoughts?He's lying. If he really took responsibility for what was done, he'd stand for a trial and apologize for the murders and accept punishment for those. He's not doing that.

Uh...you have me mixed up with someone else. I do believe in the right to property. Check my sig.

I was knocking Soheran on property rights, not you.

And when they made Sandino out to be a Bolshevik thug, they were just trying to indicate how chaotic he was?

Bolsheviks were convenient scapegoats for Americans at the time. Writing the chaos off as such is plenty sufficient reason for most people, who don't give a damn about the real reason, because it doesn't directly affect them, even though it is fundamentally important.


My position is more complicated than that, as you would know if you had ever paid attention beyond the opening portions of my argument.

No, I certainly did pay attention to your arguments. The rest is just irrelevant equivocation.

I was knocking Soheran on property rights, not you.

Ah, sorry. My misunderstanding.

I sense much blood will be shed here. :) Like the festering vampire I am, I will sit back and watch until the time for the kill is ripe.

I sense much blood will be shed here. :) Like the festering vampire I am, I will sit back and watch until the time for the kill is ripe.

ZOMG! Vampire!

*tosses a bulb of garlic down E.M.'s throat, impales with silver stake, sprays with holy water, pushes into sunlight*

:D

ZOMG! Vampire!

*tosses a bulb of garlic down E.M.'s throat, impales with silver stake, sprays with holy water, pushes into sunlight*

:D
Amateur, you believe all that silly nonsense they feed you at the movies. :) Now that your futile attempts to eradicate me have come to no avail, I will return to lurking in the shadows whilst waiting for the right moment. <.<

Amateur, you believe all that silly nonsense they feed you at the movies. :) Now that your futile attempts to eradicate me have come to no avail, I will return to lurking in the shadows whilst waiting for the right moment. <.<

O RLY?

O RLY?
http://games.activision.com/games/vampire/vampire_face.jpg

I'll be keeping a close eye. :)

No, I certainly did pay attention to your arguments. The rest is just irrelevant equivocation.

Right. So you're aware, for instance, that I support some degree of protection for property rights in today's society, and I would consider the expropriation of property to be a (potentially justifiable) injustice.

That is to say, there is no reason I would not see protecting property as a kind of justification for military intervention - I simply would point out that it is not a very good one, as surely even many right-wing libertarians would grant.

If you were aware of my positions and you said what you said, you are simply a liar.