NationStates Jolt Archive

You mean the part where he quotes Phil Collins?

The red part about him being correct about Chile. Is that there or am I imagining it?

http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_respallende.htm

Allende's point by point response to that resolution. Knock yourself out. The rest of will discuss Chavez.
Hahahahaha. Sorry, but that means zero. If the 2/3 majority of the Chamber of Deputies accuses him of all those things that they did, all of the reasons why they pleaded to the military to put an "immediate end to his constitutional violations", then him simply denying those actions or explaining those actions, doesn't change anything. Those actions still happend, they were factual.

It doesn't change anything that he replied to it???
Yes. really. If you bothered to read what you posted, you would notice that nowhere does it say that Allende was using the military to further his economic ideals.
Oh really? Please, I am enjoying this way too much...the way a cat simply plays with a mouse while making his kill:
"c) a Clarification regarding the role of the military ministers that President Allende had nominated to key cabinet posts (Articles 13 and 14). It should be pointed out that a year earlier Allende himself opened the doors of politics to the military by placing various generals and admirals in key ministries. For several months, he had even appointed Army Commander-in-Chief Carlos Prats to the Ministry of the Interior, a highly controversial and important political office. In August 1973, an admiral was made Minister of Finance, an office that was key to the economic management of the country."

The Chamber of Deputies. Granted, the military wanted to put an end to Allende's reputed corrption. But, after Allende was gone, was it necessary for Pinochet to murder so many citizens? Was it? The seed of Allende had been yanked out by his death. His family also fled Chile and still reside in exile. Why then, for more than 2 decades, did Pinochet murdered the same people he claimed was protecting from ex-President Allende? Can you answer that, TAI?
And the Chamber of Deputies pleaded for the military to stop him.

Well it was necessary for the new government to establish order..and remember, under Allende alot of left wing groups were allowed, while right wing (or simply anti-Allende) groups were persecuated, so there were alot of people for Pinochet's new government to fight....Allende supporters, left-ist paramilitaries that Allende had allowed.... so it is natural that violence would occur....it wasn't exactly all roses and peaches.

However, as the years went on, indeed awful things were commited under the Pinochet government. It was a dictatorship...and dictatorships are never the desired final form of government...and indeed it wasn't the final form of his government...he let himself be voted out and thus, transformed Chile from an awful economically ruined state ruled by an authoritarian, corrupt unconstitutional marxist, to a dicatoship which created stability and re-formed the free market, to a free society.

The red part about him being correct about Chile. Is that there or am I imagining it?

It's there.

Watch, he'll now ignore my response to that very post. EDIT: omg! He responded!

Hahahahaha. Sorry, but that means zero. If the 2/3 majority of the Chamber of Deputies accuses him of all those things that they did, all of the reasons why they pleaded to the military to put an "immediate end to his constitutional violations", then him simply denying those actions or explaining those actions, doesn't change anything. Those actions still happend, they were factional.

They didn't have two thirds. If they did, they would have had the power to make it stick. Again, you fail at basic research.

It doesn't change anything that he replied to it???

Considering the fact thathe explains exactly why each of the points is wrong, it does change things.

Oh really? Please, I am enjoying this way too much...the way a cat simply plays with a mouse while making his kill:
"c) a Clarification regarding the role of the military ministers that President Allende had nominated to key cabinet posts (Articles 13 and 14). It should be pointed out that a year earlier Allende himself opened the doors of politics to the military by placing various generals and admirals in key ministries. For several months, he had even appointed Army Commander-in-Chief Carlos Prats to the Ministry of the Interior, a highly controversial and important political office. In August 1973, an admiral was made Minister of Finance, an office that was key to the economic management of the country."

Again, that does not in any way suggest that he was using the military apparatus to violently enfore his ideals. Appointing military officials to high positions in government is not the same thing. Unless you believe that Colin Powell's appointment to Sec. of State was a military intervention to influence the US economy.

And the Chamber of Deputies pleaded for the military to stop him.

Well it was necessary for the new government to establish order..and remember, under Allende alot of left wing groups were allowed, while right wing (or simply anti-Allende) groups were persecuated, so there were alot of people for Pinochet's new government to fight....Allende supporters, left-ist paramilitaries that Allende had allowed.... so it is natural that violence would occur....it wasn't exactly all roses and peaches.

However, as the years went on, indeed awful things were commited under the Pinochet government. It was a dictatorship...and dictatorships are never the desired final form of government...and indeed it wasn't the final form of his government...he let himself be voted out and thus, transformed Chile from an awful economically ruined state ruled by an authoritarian, corrupt unconstitutional marxist, to a dicatoship which created stability and re-formed the free market, to a free society.

After this diatribe in favor of Pinochet and new Chile, I would like to ask you one final thing. If Pinochet was needed to 'save' Chile from economical ruin and such, why then was he accused of crimes against humanity and was awaiting trial before his death? Why, TAI? Because if he was so needed and so 'good' for Chile as you put it, or no, wait, 'preferable', why was an impeachable man like that accused? He was Chile's salvation after all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet's_arrest_and_trial
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/04/chile9943.htm
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=505222

Stylish! Spoken like an anime character. I could picture this coming from Kenshin Himura's mouth. Muy bueno, me gusta ver-te discutir. Pudríamos crear uno pequeño equipo. :D

¿Una peña de debates?

(And Kenshin Himura is one of my favourite characters ever)

The Iberoamerican Block? El Bloque Iberoamericano. Cuidado, viene...¡Y está cabreado!

Regarding Allende, I do, as the moderate I think I am, (I am infatuated with that), I think Allende made many, many mistakes, mainly due to the spirit of his time. He made changes too harsh, too fast and without negotiating enough. Did that justified what came later? No way. No friggin' way. Was Pinochet right? No. The Chamber sohuld had impeached him, wait to depose him, or negotiate. Nothing could justify that coup, or the things that happened after it.

With Allende's death, I would have a better image of Pinochet if he had step down from power, and call for new elections. He didn't, so he was another powermonger monster and that's it.

Actually, I find Chávez as a curious mix of some of the worse traits of Fidel and Pinochet, with just some of the positive qualities of Allende.

¿Una peña de debates?

(And Kenshin Himura is one of my favourite characters ever)

The Iberoamerican Block? El Bloque Iberoamericano. Cuidado, viene...¡Y está cabreado!

Regarding Allende, I do, as the moderate I think I am, (I am infatuated with that), I think Allende made many, many mistakes, mainly due to the spirit of his time. He made changes too harsh, too fast and without negotiating enough. Did that justified what came later? No way. No friggin' way. Was Pinochet right? No. The Chamber sohuld had impeached him, wait to depose him, or negotiate. Nothing could justify that coup, or the things that happened after it.

With Allende's death, I would have a better image of Pinochet if he had step down from power, and call for new elections. He didn't, so he was another powermonger monster and that's it.

Actually, I find Chávez as a curious mix of some of the worse traits of Fidel and Pinochet, with just some of the positive qualities of Allende.

Nodnods.

And, well, we could. Though I have this VERY anime-istic trait in the way I sometimes argue (QED putting weird poetry before a given form of argument, such as the Riddler, Brutus' Honor, or Haiku...) :D which might sit well with Nanatsu-chan, but would it with you? ;)

¿Una peña de debates?

(And Kenshin Himura is one of my favourite characters ever)

The Iberoamerican Block? El Bloque Iberoamericano. Cuidado, viene...¡Y está cabreado!

Ole!!! Eso es lo que somos tíos, somos la peña! Me gusta, me gusta.

Cómo es que te dicen a ti, Aelosia. ¿Gallito e' pelea? Porque es que eres brava, paisana. Y el Heikoku no se queda atrás.:D

Ole!!! Eso es lo que somos tíos, somos la peña! Me gusta, me gusta.

Cómo es que te dicen a ti, Aelosia. ¿Gallito e' pelea? Porque es que eres brava, paisana. Y el Heikoku no se queda atrás.:D

Gracias, gracias. Si, si, pudríamos... :D

Cuestión, como hacemos esto? Digo, argumentar en equipo. :D

Gracias, gracias. Si, si, pudríamos... :D

Cuestión, como hacemos esto? Digo, argumentar en equipo. :D

Se podría formar un grupo. Pero tomando en consideración que cada cuál tiene su trabajo y tal. Sería divertido. Hay que preguntarle a Aelosia qué piensa.

Nodnods.

And, well, we could. Though I have this VERY anime-istic trait in the way I sometimes argue (QED putting weird poetry before a given form of argument, such as the Riddler, Brutus' Honor, or Haiku...) :D which might sit well with Nanatsu-chan, but would it with you? ;)

I'm pretty blunt and stubborn, although I have this bad habit to concede partial points to my debate opponents. Yet, all I need is to stand behind you and nod, isn't that the most aprecciated form of deabte assistance? Even if I don't participate, I can endorse. I like the idea, I'll try it sometime.

Ole!!! Eso es lo que somos tíos, somos la peña! Me gusta, me gusta.

Cómo es que te dicen a ti, Aelosia. ¿Gallito e' pelea? Porque es que eres brava, paisana. Y el Heikoku no se queda atrás.:D

Así me decían en la universidad cuando peleaba con la gente. Pequeña pero brava. Heikoku también es bravo, levanta la cresta y todo. :D

Gracias, gracias. Si, si, pudríamos... :D

Cuestión, como hacemos esto? Digo, argumentar en equipo. :D

En cualquier "thread" que estemos todos de acuerdo, que creo son la mayoría. Por lo menos en política, que son la mayoría de los que se discuten aquí. Y los tres somos fanáticos del manga y el anime. Ya por ahí podemos comenzar.

Se podría formar un grupo. Pero tomando en consideración que cada cuál tiene su trabajo y tal. Sería divertido. Hay que preguntarle a Aelosia qué piensa.

De acuerdo...

Se podría formar un grupo. Pero tomando en consideración que cada cuál tiene su trabajo y tal. Sería divertido. Hay que preguntarle a Aelosia qué piensa.

Pienso que es una idea maravillosa.

Así me decían en la universidad cuando peleaba con la gente. Pequeña pero brava. Heikoku también es bravo, levanta la cresta y todo. :D

Soy un poquito arrogante, si, si. Piensa en Yumichika de Bleach pero con el problema de orgullo sendo "soy inteligente" en lugar de "soy guapo". :D

Así me decían en la universidad cuando peleaba con la gente. Pequeña pero brava. Heikoku también es bravo, levanta la cresta y todo. :D

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!!! Tía, es que me has hecho reír con ésto último tanto. Gracias!!!:D

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!!! Tía, es que me has hecho reír con ésto último tanto. Gracias!!!:D

Bién, que esperabas de uno tipo que nomea sus ataques en una pelea? Si hablo en "7th Flush" y uso una "forma" argumentativa específica - en esto caso, siete frases con el mismo empezo - como un personaje, eso muestra que soy arrogante en el mejor de los casos, y loco en el peor! :D

Soy un poquito arrogante, si, si. Piensa en Yumichika de Bleach pero con el problema de orgullo sendo "soy inteligente" en lugar de "soy guapo". :D

:O Cuidado, que a mí esos tipos me atraen, siempre y cuando tengan con qué demostrar toda esa altanería y no sean charlatanes.

Y siempre a su orden, Nanatsu :D

Bién, que esperabas de uno tipo que nomea sus ataques en una pelea? Si hablo en "7th Flush" y uso una "forma" argumentativa específica - en esto caso, siete frases con el mismo empezo - como un personaje, eso muestra que soy arrogante en el mejor de los casos, y loco en el peor! :D

Mientras más peligroso el chaval, mejor. Qué viva la estulticia!!!:D

Y abajo con el Camarada Hugo!!

:O Cuidado, que a mí esos tipos me atraen, siempre y cuando tengan con qué demostrar toda esa altanería y no sean charlatanes.

Y siempre a su orden, Nanatsu :D

Jaja, bien, bien. Bueno, busca por "Haiku", "Riddler", "Brutus' Honor", "7th Flush" and "Last Word" en la función de busca que aqui tenemos. Verás de que hablo, y si tiengo o no como demostrar la altanería. :)

Mientras más peligroso el chaval, mejor. Qué viva la estulticia!!!:D

No sé como fué traducido eso en español, pero recuerda-te de lo que hablava Zaraki cuando de la lucha con Komamura:

"Sanidad? Lo siento, pero no me recuerda yá tener tenido algo que parezcesse con eso un dia!"

:D

Jaja, bien, bien. Bueno, procura por "Haiku", "Riddler", "Brutus' Honor", "7th Flush" and "Last Word" en la función de procura que aqui tenemos. Verás de que hablo, y si tiengo o no como demostrar la altanería. :)

Después que sepas parar la cresta...:wink: Con eso nos conformamos, nene.

Con la cresta basta, de hecho.

Y sí, como decimos aquí. "Se vaaaa, se va se va se vaaa. Hugo se vaaaa, Hugo se vaaa"

Where is the thread I was posting in??:confused: ahh here it is!

Hmm...avoiding this thread now because you've realized it wasn't so "rich"?? Maybe take a look at that source..and the two below....

Well...no snide remarks on the "BS 'Economist' editorial article from 1973"???

No defense of Allende's corruption and ties to the Soviet Union??

Wow, Heikoku...:confused:


Ah, how fun. When confronted with facts that Santiago doesn't like, he crouches over in the corner and just gets emotionally defensive of his beloved socialist leader. Unfortauntly, you can't just simply call facts rubbish if you don't like them..... So who are we to believe? The in depth details and facts of the KGB....or you and your emotional defense of Allende? (cute, by the way)

Deep details? please. The Economist Editorial of 1973? I can post a marxist pamphlet if you wish, they have have the same level of objectivity.

We can compare the KGB intervention with the support the CIA gave to his opposition.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch20-01.htm

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves." — Henry Kissinger


Or Pinochet corruption with Allendes...

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/HincheyReport.asp
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB149/index.htm

lets not compare the casualties caused...


Really? Hmm..I wonder what you'd call abuse of the presidential powers and clearly ignoring his congress, then? (By the way it is possible to be authoritarian having been democratically elected, don't you know? :wink:)

If you truley care for this issue, not just for your emotions, you will read this statement from Chile's Chamber of Deputies, which was approved by 81 votes against 47.



Here is the most important thing....the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, calls Allende a tyrant, even though he was democratically elected....and by more than a 2/3 majority, pleas for the military to remove the tyrant from control of Chile:



I read it. I also read Allende response. So the Chamber of Deputies calls a president with 2/3 support from the population a tyrant. Interesting. Any way, if the Deputies felt he had overstepped his authority doesn't justifies calling for military intervention. They did so mainly because of the pressure of the CIA.

On the other hand, the authoritarian Allende though of calling for a plebiscite to solve the matter. The right-wing Chamber didn´t wanted to hear about it because they would surely lose. So they threw a coup.


So you see, you may not like what I have to say, but there is a factual reason I am saying it.



Didn't you read what I said? We were discussing personal anecdotes...so I told you one. It wasn't about "making lots of money" it was about the government voilating this family's economic freedom, and, due to this, the family had no income or way of supporting themselves (they were starving) so they had to leave the country. All in the name of Allende's bullshit "via chilena al socialismo" :rolleyes:


Indeed. Quite unfortunate.



Wel that's just not true. Didn't Chile under Pinochet lead to economic freedom, social freedom and political freedom, eventually? (without a revolution)? If you say yes, then you lied in your post. If you say no then you are lying now and will shock the Chilean population who thinks they are living in a free society, right now.

That's pure nonsense. Authoritarian governments do not lead to free societies. Free societies have to grow against authoritarian governments. Shall we thank the soviets for Poland's democracy? please... :rolleyes:


Why don't you stop worrying about what 'they' told you and listen to what I'm telling you. The truth, even if you don't wish to hear it.

I hear what you say... that's why I have to agree with them.

There was a cold war going on and both sides tried to influence what they saw as unclaimed territories, like Chile. At any rate KGB involvement with Allende government was much less profound that CIA involvement with Pinochet dictatorship.
Perhaps, but complaining about imperialism isn't really a matter of degrees - more a matter of principle.

One thing I'd like to note out of all this however is that people make sure they don't overemphasise the CIA's involvement in the coup. There is no doubt that they did what they could to encourage it, and a lot of stuff was released during the Clinton administration on that subject, but it was not the CIA's fault that the Chilean economy was tanking and Allende got into this massive fight with the parliament. For the military to coup its own nation, it doesn't really need the help of a foreign power. So both the motive and the ability to do it were there without the CIA. That's not excusing what the Nixon administration did, but I feel that people too often fail to realise that this was first and foremost a domestic Chilean problem. The CIA didn't make the coup happen, and Allende would not have finished his term without them.

A political conflict between the president and the parliament:eek:...oh my god somebody please throw a cuop d'etat before it gets out of hand!!!
It had gotten out of hand a long time before. And on the side, the supreme court had also condemned the government, because it just didn't implement court judgements when they didn't fit its program.

A inexcusable cause belis to throw a coup, install a dictatorship and murder thousands of people. Yes... much better, the economy is safe now...phew....for some that is.
You really don't consider the link between the economy and people's livelihoods?

If Pinochet was needed to 'save' Chile from economical ruin and such, why then was he accused of crimes against humanity and was awaiting trial before his death? Why, TAI? Because if he was so needed and so 'good' for Chile as you put it, or no, wait, 'preferable', why was an impeachable man like that accused?
There is a pretty big difference between "good" and "preferable", the latter meaning "less bad". And that would certainly allow for him to deserve punishment for crimes he committed.

On the other hand, the authoritarian Allende though of calling for a plebiscite to solve the matter. The right-wing Chamber didn´t wanted to hear about it because they would surely lose. So they threw a coup.
The reason things like parliaments exist is because the 50+1 system is not a fair representation of the views of the electorate. Rule by plebiscite has always been nothing but a tool for politicians too lazy or unwilling to sort out their differences with the opposition.

"Authoritarian" doesn't have to mean "undemocratic". Pinochet was authoritarian, and he held an election (eventually). Chávez and Putin are very authoritarian leaders who accept no dissent from anyone around them or in public, but both have repeatedly won popular elections. I found this on wiki, which I think is an excellent description: "Electoralism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoralism).

One thing that you can say for Hugo Chavez is that he learnt from Allende's mistakes.

He nobbled his right wing opponents before they could nobble him.

I'm sure he isn't a particularly nice man - but is that the point?

This is for Heikoku, Santiago I, Neesika, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Gift-of-god and all the rest who, from this post forth, shall be denied their ability to defend Allende's presidency against Pinochet and the Miltary simply carrying out the wishes of the Chilean Congress and thus, the views of the Chilean People, as spoken through representation.

3- I have an 80-page translation, worth a LOT, to be delivered by monday. I have no time to play with you.
So...you should be done with that...and even though you said you were super busy, you still had time to play around with other posters in this thread....so now, back to you:

If you truley care for this issue, not just for your emotions, you will read this statement from Chile's Chamber of Deputies, which was approved by 81 votes against 47.


Quote:
The Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973


(Note from José Piñera: This is my translation of the complete text of the Resolution that Chile’s Chamber of Deputies approved, by 81 votes against 47, on August 22, 1973. The original text in Spanish is here. This Resolution accuses the government of President Salvador Allende of several violations to the Constitution and the laws and it "represents" the military ministers in his cabinet with this "grave breakdown of the Republic’s constitutional and legal order." Likewise, it reminds them "that, by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution, and to the laws of the land . . . it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land." On September 11, 1973 --18 days after this Resolution-- the Chilean Armed Forces removed from office the President thus charged with violating the Chilean Constitution. My essay on the extraordinary historic importance of this Resolution is here and it was published in the journal "Society" of September/October 2005. As a contribution to the historic truth, I release this translation and my essay into the "public domain".)

Spanish | French | German | Polish


The Resolution

Considering:

1. That for the Rule of Law to exist, public authorities must carry out their activities and discharge their duties within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the land, respecting fully the principle of reciprocal independence to which they are bound, and that all inhabitants of the country must be allowed to enjoy the guarantees and fundamental rights assured them by the Constitution;

2. That the legitimacy of the Chilean State lies with the people who, over the years, have invested in this legitimacy with the underlying consensus of their coexistence, and that an assault on this legitimacy not only destroys the cultural and political heritage of our Nation, but also denies, in practice, all possibility of democratic life;

3. That the values and principles expressed in the Constitution, according to article 2, indicate that sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation, and that authorities may not exercise more powers than those delegated to them by the Nation; and, in article 3, it is deduced that any government that arrogates to itself rights not delegated to it by the people commits sedition;

4. That the current President of the Republic was elected by the full Congress, in accordance with a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated in the Constitution for the very purpose of assuring that the actions of his administration would be subject to the principles and norms of the Rule of Law that he solemnly agreed to respect;

5. That it is a fact that the current government of the Republic, from the beginning, has sought to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state and, in this manner, fulfilling the goal of establishing a totalitarian system: the absolute opposite of the representative democracy established by the Constitution;

6. That to achieve this end, the administration has committed not isolated violations of the Constitution and the laws of the land, rather it has made such violations a permanent system of conduct, to such an extreme that it systematically ignores and breaches the proper role of the other branches of government, habitually violating the Constitutional guarantees of all citizens of the Republic, and allowing and supporting the creation of illegitimate parallel powers that constitute an extremely grave danger to the Nation, by all of which it has destroyed essential elements of institutional legitimacy and the Rule of Law;

7. That the administration has committed the following assaults on the proper role of the National Congress, seat of legislative power:

a) It has usurped Congress’s principle role of legislation through the adoption of various measures of great importance to the country’s social and economic life that are unquestionably matters of legislation through special decrees enacted in an abuse of power, or through simple "administrative resolutions" using legal loopholes. It is noteworthy that all of this has been done with the deliberate and confessed purpose of substituting the country’s institutional structures, as conceived by current legislation, with absolute executive authority and the total elimination of legislative authority;

b) It has consistently mocked the National Congress’s oversight role by effectively removing its power to formally accuse Ministers of State who violate the Constitution or laws of the land, or who commit other offenses specified by the Constitution, and;

c) Lastly, what is most extraordinarily grave, it has utterly swept aside the exalted role of Congress as a duly constituted power by refusing to enact the Constitutional reform of three areas of the economy that were approved in strict compliance with the norms established by the Constitution.

8. That it has committed the following assaults on the judicial branch:

a) With the goal of undermining the authority of the courts and compromising their independence, it has led an infamous campaign of libel and slander against the Supreme Court, and it has sanctioned very serious attacks against judges and their authority;

b) It has made a mockery of justice in cases of delinquents belonging to political parties or groups affiliated with or close to the administration, either through the abusive use of pardons or deliberate noncompliance with detention orders;

c) It has violated express laws and utterly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives and, when so accused by the Supreme Court, the President of the Republic has gone to the unheard of extreme of arrogating to himself a right to judge the merit of judicial sentences and to determine when they are to be complied with;

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller’s Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration’s constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile’s Channel 9, by assaulting that university’s new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens’ security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile’s institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.
http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_te...redemoc_en.htm

Here is the most important thing....the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, calls Allende a tyrant, even though he was democratically elected....and by just shy of a 2/3 majority (but still a large majority), pleas for the military to remove the tyrant from control of Chile:

By the way, Allende was only voted into power after recieving 36.61% of the votes...he hardly represented the majority of Chileans. Compare that to the 44.1% vote from Chileans that Pinochet recieved AFTER living under his "horrible" government for 17 or so years. Pinochet was even more popular than Allende was even when stepping down from Power. :p

Also, it shall be noted that Wiki hath thus decreed (on the Chilean Election where Allende won):

The CIA did not provide direct assistance to any candidate as they had in 1964, but rather focused on anti-Allende propaganda, ultimately spending $425,000. The money was used in a "scare campaign" of posters and pamphlets linking an Allende victory with the violence and repression associated with the Soviet Union [1].

CIA director Richard Helms complained that he was ordered by the White House to "beat somebody with nothing" [1].

KGB money was more precisely targeted. Allende made a personal request for Soviet money through his personal contact, KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who urgently came to Chile from Mexico City to help Allende. The original allocation of money for these elections through the KGB was $400,000, and additional personal subsidy of $50,000 directly to Allende [1]. It is believed that help from KGB was a decisive factor, because Allende won by a narrow margin of 39,000 votes of a total of the 3 million cast. After the elections, the KGB director Yuri Andropov obtained a permission for additional money and other resources from the Central Committee of the CPSU to ensure Allende victory in Congress. In his request on 24 October, he stated that KGB "will carry out measures designed to promote the consolidation of Allende's victory and his election to the post of President of the country" [1].


And anyway....so Congress allowed Allende to become president (because at 36% he recieved 2% more than the 2nd place runner up) only if he would sign the Statute of Constitutional Guarantees, and by doing so swear that he would not violate the constitution.

Then, once he did, over and over and over again, in his efforts to turn the nation into a Marxist Tolatarian Dictatorship, run on violence and marxist propaganda, that same Congress claimed him to have failed his duties as President, and called for the Military to "Put an end" to his immediate constitutional violations.

Thus, it shall be decreed, that the Chilean Military under the leadership of General Pinochet was doing it's duty in representing the nation of Chile and responding to the wishes of it's Congress, by removing the cancer that was Allende.

Under the progressive thinking of the European Enlightenment, when a leader becomes tyranical, oppressive and dictatorial, it is the duty, the right of the people to strike him down and repair. Congress believed it so, and aside from Castro and a few International Marxists, nobody shed any tears for Allende.

Thus, it was so.

The case is solved.

"Resolution by Chamber of Deputies. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SERIOUSLY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION."

The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3 percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations included: support of armed groups (**Left-Wing Paramilitary Groups**), illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country, confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury. The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner, with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system," that is, a Communist dictatorship.

It is an extraordinary fact that the Chamber's Resolution had been approved by all of the members from the Christian Democratic Party, the majority party whose undisputed leader was Senate President and former President of the Republic Eduardo Frei Montalva. Only three years earlier, on October 24, 1970, that same party had given all of its votes in order to elect Salvador Allende president in the Congress.

For John Locke, the great English political thinker, tyranny is "the exercise of power beyond the bounds of law." When such a tyrant appears, it is he who places the country in a state of war by exceeding the limits of his power. That is to say, he has "rebelled," in the strict Latin sense of the word ("re-bellare" coming from "bellum,"war").

The essence of the Chamber Resolution, therefore, was the accusation made against President Allende that, in spite of his having been elected democratically, he had rebelled against the Constitution and thereby become a tyrant.

Twenty violations and a desperate plea

The Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies has 15 Articles and can be broken down conceptually into the following four concepts:

a) a Preamble contained in Articles 1 through 4, which describe the known conditions essential for the existence of the Rule of Law. It contains a warning charged with significance: "a government that assumes powers not granted to it by the people engages in sedition." It also contains a reminder that President Allende was not elected by a majority of the popular vote, but by the Congress, "subject to a statute of democratic guarantees incorporated into the Constitution."

b) twenty Accusations of violations of the Constitution and the laws: one general accusation (Articles 5 and 6); seven accusations of violations of the separation of powers (Articles, 7, 8 and 9); ten accusations of actual violations of specified human rights (Article 10); and, finally, two accusations of seditious acts (Articles 11 and 12). This listing has a structure similar to the chain of accusations against King George III made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

c) a Clarification regarding the role of the military ministers that President Allende had nominated to key cabinet posts (Articles 13 and 14). It should be pointed out that a year earlier Allende himself opened the doors of politics to the military by placing various generals and admirals in key ministries. For several months, he had even appointed Army Commander-in-Chief Carlos Prats to the Ministry of the Interior, a highly controversial and important political office. In August 1973, an admiral was made Minister of Finance, an office that was key to the economic management of the country.

d) a Plea to the military ministers (Article 15) to put "an immediate end" to these serious constitutional violations.

http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_nuncamas_en.htm

Santiago I, that was not from the Economist, and my post joking about that was sarcasm, directed toward's Hiekoku's foolishness.

Towards this:
"Authoritarian governments do not lead to free societies. Free societies have to grow against authoritarian governments. Shall we thank the soviets for Poland's democracy? please... "

Obviously, it did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet#1988_referendum_and_transition_to_democracy)

Also...you are not seriously going to try to compare the Soviet Invasion and subsequent occupation of Poland, which only ended after Polish revults and the fall of the Soviet Empire, are you? Don't.

I want to believe that what I'm reading is not you, TAI, once again, trying to justify Pinochet's dictatorship of Chile over Allende's presidency as the best choice. But you've shown me time and time again that all you're capable of doing is make apologies for a man who, obviously to the rest of the world, is a criminal. I'm not raising my hopes nor will take into consideration your posts herein on about this subject, mainly because you have absolutely no idea under heaven what it's like to live under the iron fist of a dictator. You are committing the same mistake historians make time and time again. You think you understand, and you understand nothing. A pity really. I never expected this from such a fine poster as you.

I want to believe that what I'm reading is not you, TAI, once again, trying to justify Pinochet's dictatorship of Chile over Allende's presidency as the best choice. But you've shown me time and time again that all you're capable of doing is make apologies for a man who, obviously to the rest of the world, is a criminal. I'm not raising my hopes nor will take into consideration your posts herein on about this subject, mainly because you have absolutely no idea under heaven what it's like to live under the iron fist of a dictator. You are committing the same mistake historians make time and time again. You think you understand, and you understand nothing. A pity really. I never expected this from such a fine poster as you.
It is true that I've been blessed and fortune enough to live under stability and prosperity, and not under the brutality of a dictatorship, but, there are many who lived under Allende, whether they be the majority of Congress that called for the Military to remove him, or the 44% of Chileans that voted to continue Pinochet's leadership, after 17 years of previous rule who are testament to the opposition of Allende and/or the approval of Pinochet.

Remember, being democratically elected does not refrain one from being a dicatatorial tyrant trying to establish a totalitarian regime (Neu Leonstein brought up this point a few posts ago, if you recall)

....I shouldn't even have to bring up Hitler, history's best example of this. And as the Congress showed, Allende WAS a tyrant, whether by trying to brainwash students with Marxism, allowing leftist paramilitaries to form, opposes freedom of opposition to the government, opposes freedom of the press or acting as if the executive branch was the only branch of the government, so thus him being democratically elected meant nothing.

I understand your emotion, but I am arguing this case based on the facts given to me by the Chilean people (how they voted) and the Chilean Congress (how they opposed Allende as a tyrant).

By the way, the "rest of the world" does not all consider him a criminal. Indeed, he was supported by America, England and France (to a lesser extent) during his time in power and Chileans still are roughly divided over whether he was good or bad for the country.....so there still remain a difference in opinions, as there should be.

I would like you to see the reason in this, even if cannot agree, based on your personal feelings and personal history (of which I undertand).

Snip.

Cherry-picking what the Enlightenment means, are we?

Duty of the people = duty of the CHILEAN people in this case. Not duty of the CIA people.

That simple.

Furthermore, Allende still had quite a lot of support. And by your own logic, Bush himself should have been overthrown in a bloody coup.

Sieptima Luna, llama a Aelosia para que juguemos? Informa-le de mi idea, por favor.

Duty of the people = duty of the CHILEAN people in this case. Not duty of the CIA people.

That simple.

Furthermore, Allende still had quite a lot of support. And by your own logic, Bush himself should have been overthrown in a bloody coup.

Isn't it also true that the coup was in fact staged by Chileans? Even if the CIA were involved, which it almost certainly was, realistically it is highly unlikely for any coup to succeed without outside aid. We learned this quite clearly in 1991 when Saddam butchered his people following their uprising in the wake of the Gulf War.

That being said, this doesn't justify the coup by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn't accurate to say the CIA marched in there and unilaterally removed Allende from power.

*SNIP*
:D

Excellent. Something like this is exactly what I had hoped you'd post.

A mix of "ignore the facts, blame the CIA, and take one or two pieces out of context while ignoring the rest"...:D

I'm glad you did so, because it shows to many people who come into this thread, that I have out-debated you by showing you all the evidence for my claim.

:D

That being said, this doesn't justify the coup by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn't accurate to say the CIA marched in there and unilaterally removed Allende from power.
After reading my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14220136&postcount=276), I'd like you, one of the people on NSG who's opinion I do respect, to tell me why the coup wasn't justified?

Really, how shocking! The US trying to topple the regime of a psychopath who lives within a missile's launch away from our borders! Never! Why would we do that? We love Democracy... and Capitalism... errmmm I mean Communism and Dictatorships!

What the hell are we doing here, trying to turn Chavez into another Castro? That's amazing, because the rest of the world started ignoring our embargo of Cuba years and years ago.

I don't give a rat's butt about capitalism. We can have democracy without it--in fact, we'd probably have *more* democracy without it. I care that we keep trying to tell other countries how to govern themselves. That is NOT democracy.

You should bone up on what the U.S. has been doing in Latin America all these years. I haven't heard anything about Chavez threatening to send missiles at the U.S. but I know of a few other nations that would be more than justified. If you don't like feeling threatened by other countries then maybe you should stop supporting U.S. leaders who bully them.

After reading my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14220136&postcount=276), I'd like you, one of the people on NSG who's opinion I do respect, to tell me why the coup wasn't justified?

I support coups when they are used to restore democracy, not to replace one dictator with another. While the fight to contain the spread of communism (and the Soviet fight against capitalism) often led to these kinds of activities out of realistic concerns, that doesn't mean I find those actions morally right.

It is true that I've been blessed and fortune enough to live under stability and prosperity, and not under the brutality of a dictatorship, but, there are many who lived under Allende, whether they be the majority of Congress that called for the Military to remove him, or the 44% of Chileans that voted to continue Pinochet's leadership, after 17 years of previous rule who are testament to the opposition of Allende and/or the approval of Pinochet.

Remember, being democratically elected does not refrain one from being a dicatatorial tyrant trying to establish a totalitarian regime (Neu Leonstein brought up this point a few posts ago, if you recall)

....I shouldn't even have to bring up Hitler, history's best example of this. And as the Congress showed, Allende WAS a tyrant, whether by trying to brainwash students with Marxism, allowing leftist paramilitaries to form, opposes freedom of opposition to the government, opposes freedom of the press or acting as if the executive branch was the only branch of the government, so thus him being democratically elected meant nothing.

I understand your emotion, but I am arguing this case based on the facts given to me by the Chilean people (how they voted) and the Chilean Congress (how they opposed Allende as a tyrant).

By the way, the "rest of the world" does not all consider him a criminal. Indeed, he was supported by America, England and France (to a lesser extent) during his time in power and Chileans still are roughly divided over whether he was good or bad for the country.....so there still remain a difference in opinions, as there should be.

I would like you to see the reason in this, even if cannot agree, based on your personal feelings and personal history (of which I undertand).

I see you're neatly sidestepping the question of whether *Pinochet* was a tyrant. By the way? I am not going to judge whether someone is a tyrant by whether the U.S., the UK, and France support them. The three biggest colonial powers of the 19th and 20th centuries? NO ROOM to talk about tyranny whatsoever.

I support coups when they are used to restore democracy, not to replace one dictator with another. While the fight to contain the spread of communism (and the Soviet fight against capitalism) often led to these kinds of activities out of realistic concerns, that doesn't mean I find those actions morally right.
Understood, but if you read the Chilean Congress' statement against Allende, it was clearly obvious that he needed to be removed. And while this was naturally important for American and Soviet influences, Cold-War politics had much less effect on the coup than domestic economic and social policy under Allende in Chile. That is, moving towards a totalitarian marxist state that bans opposition, censors media, brainwashes students and summons a command-economy.

Nobody could have predicted what came from a coup against Pinochet, but many (and politically more important, a vast majority in Congress) believed that it was worth the risk of an uncertain future than the risk of the certain future under Allende, which was looking bleak and dim.

I'd say that Chile, for it's faults under Pinochet, was still a better place to live in than most if not all of the countries alligned with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

I see you're neatly sidestepping the question of whether *Pinochet* was a tyrant. By the way? I am not going to judge whether someone is a tyrant by whether the U.S., the UK, and France support them. The three biggest colonial powers of the 19th and 20th centuries? NO ROOM to talk about tyranny whatsoever.
Well, if we would simply accept the facts about Allende and his government, and agree that as an unconstitutional tyrant, he needed to be removed, I'd be glad to discuss whether Pinochet was a tyrant or not. But one step at a time.

:D

Excellent. Something like this is exactly what I had hoped you'd post.

A mix of "ignore the facts, blame the CIA, and take one or two pieces out of context while ignoring the rest"...:D

I'm glad you did so, because it shows to many people who come into this thread, that I have out-debated you by showing you all the evidence for my claim.

:D

Does the phrase "TL, DR" mean anything to you? The fact remains that a MAJORITY of the Chileans didn't want the coup to happen as it did, and that what the Chilean congress wrote at the time did not include what Pinochet would be doing in the equation.

No, TAI, the army of a country is not a representative of a majority of its people. You know it as well as I do.

Does the phrase "TL, DR" mean anything to you? The fact remains that a MAJORITY of the Chileans didn't want the coup to happen as it did, and that what the Chilean congress wrote at the time did not include what Pinochet would be doing in the equation.
How do you know that the majority of Chileans didn't want the the coup? You don't. But the Chilean representatives of their people, who's sole job IS to represent the views of their people, wanted an end to Allende. They got it.

You have lost this arguement, but I'd have much more respect for you if you admitted that the coup was justified (given the facts that you have largely ignored) and then we can move on and debate whether or not Pinochet's regime was preferable to Allende's up and coming marxist soviet-style state.

And apathy or willful ignorance (Too Long; Didn't Read) is not an excuse, but an automatic loss of the arguement. Imagine using that in a real life debate. It's not a valid response.
No, TAI, the army of a country is not a representative of a majority of its people. You know it as well as I do.
The majority of the representatives of a country do, however, represent its people. You know it as well as I do.

Thus, the coup was legit.

The majority of the representatives of a country do, however, represent its people. You know it as well as I do.

Thus, the coup was legit.

Oh, TAI, I'd not say that. Consider for one moment that, during the last two years, the majority of the congress in the US wanted Bush out. Would a coup be legit then? Or it doesn't apply to Americans?

Oh, TAI, I'd not say that. Consider for one moment that, during the last two years, the majority of the congress in the US wanted Bush out. Would a coup be legit then? Or it doesn't apply to Americans?

There are many reasons why a coup was justified against Allende and not against Bush, and they were all in that gigantic post that I worked up, that you bitched was too long.

Anyway, stop changing the subject. How was the coup against Allende not justified?

There are many reasons why a coup was justified against Allende and not against Bush, and they were all in that gigantic post that I worked up, that you bitched was too long.

Anyway, stop changing the subject. How was the coup against Allende not justified?

Let's see the resemblances, shall we?

Civil rights violations: Check.
Amassing power to government: Check.
Torture: Check. Wait, only Bush did it.
Claiming such power is needed to prevent a "foreign threat": Check.

Can you say anything to this, TAI, ANYTHING that doesn't amount to "B-b-but FREE MARKET!"?

Let's see the resemblances, shall we?

Civil rights violations: Check.
Amassing power to government: Check.
Torture: Check. Wait, only Bush did it.
Claiming such power is needed to prevent a "foreign threat": Check.

Can you say anything to this, TAI, ANYTHING that doesn't amount to "B-b-but FREE MARKET!"?

The last thing I shall say about Bush, because in jumping on him, you keep ignoring Allende.

The Resolution, approved by almost two-thirds of the members (63.3 percent), accused President Allende's administration of 20 concrete violations of the Constitution and national laws. These violations included: support of armed groups (**Left-Wing Paramilitary Groups**), illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country, confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury. The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner, with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system," that is, a Communist dictatorship.

Bush neither had a majority of Congress ask for the military to save the nation by putting an end to him, nor did he have all those serious violations charged against him, and finally he didn't do any of the things he did do that were unjust (and indeed, he has done things there were unjust) that put our nation in national termoil that the state of Chile was in, simply to further his goal of a totalitarian state, a communist dictatorship. And you've even flat out lied and just said that Allende didn't commit torture when the Chilean Government clearly stated so in their resolution.

Now, back to Allende.

"Anyway, stop changing the subject. How was the coup against Allende not justified?"

I think that anyone who can justify the coup against Allende and the shocking aftermath that followed - where left wingers were detained and executed, has to be a fascist.
I don't believe in arguing with fascists.
If you are a fascist, why argue? Just take the CIA's money and go on a killing spree.

I think that anyone who can justify the coup against Allende and the shocking aftermath that followed - where left wingers were detained and executed, has to be a fascist.
I don't believe in arguing with fascists.
If you are a fascist, why argue? Just take the CIA's money and go on a killing spree.

binary solution set there- Allende was killing people on the Soviet dime instead, so he must be better, right?? Riiiight? So, basically it's okay, if it's a left-wing government, but it's a crime against all humanity if it's right-wing or centrist?

I smell a double-standard here alright. Find me five people in the west, who know Pinochet's name, and will actually justify his actions-even among the Conservatives in the U.S.

You'll have a hard time unless you edge out into the crazy fringe side the right-the sheet-wearing psychotics of old dixie, maybe, or the skinheads that nobody wants to tolerate (including republicans.)

On the other side of this, find five people on the Left who WILL condemn Allende. You can't, because they won't. Even if you hit them in the face with HIS torture chambers, HIS violations of basic human rights, HIS warrantless detentions, HIS death-squads and support of violent groups attacking the neighbours (Shining Path, FARC, etc.), not one Leftist is willing to condemn the man-because he was doing it "For the Progressive Cause".

Excuses, misdirections, redirections, outright lies, and rationalizations, sure, but no condemnations.

Allende was not into killing people. Maybe the Communists and others who criticised him for his social democratic ideals, had a few good points to make. Allende refused to arm the Chilean people when the military coup became inevitable.

Allende believed in peaceful socialism via the ballot box but Marshall Green (Google him! He also helped to topple Indonesia's Soekarno and Australia's Gough Whitlam) and General Pinochet had other ideas.

Allende believed in peaceful socialism via the ballot box but Marshall Green (Google him! He also helped to topple Indonesia's Soekarno and Australia's Gough Whitlam) and General Pinochet had other ideas.
Actually, Allende believed in Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro. Who were less than peaceful.

Also, OMG I can't believe I've only just found this now. The source is obviously extremely biased, but it adds lots of well-researched facts: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004624.html

It is true that I've been blessed and fortune enough to live under stability and prosperity, and not under the brutality of a dictatorship, but, there are many who lived under Allende, whether they be the majority of Congress that called for the Military to remove him, or the 44% of Chileans that voted to continue Pinochet's leadership, after 17 years of previous rule who are testament to the opposition of Allende and/or the approval of Pinochet.

Remember, being democratically elected does not refrain one from being a dicatatorial tyrant trying to establish a totalitarian regime (Neu Leonstein brought up this point a few posts ago, if you recall)

....I shouldn't even have to bring up Hitler, history's best example of this. And as the Congress showed, Allende WAS a tyrant, whether by trying to brainwash students with Marxism, allowing leftist paramilitaries to form, opposes freedom of opposition to the government, opposes freedom of the press or acting as if the executive branch was the only branch of the government, so thus him being democratically elected meant nothing.

I understand your emotion, but I am arguing this case based on the facts given to me by the Chilean people (how they voted) and the Chilean Congress (how they opposed Allende as a tyrant).

By the way, the "rest of the world" does not all consider him a criminal. Indeed, he was supported by America, England and France (to a lesser extent) during his time in power and Chileans still are roughly divided over whether he was good or bad for the country.....so there still remain a difference in opinions, as there should be.

I would like you to see the reason in this, even if cannot agree, based on your personal feelings and personal history (of which I undertand).

TAI, I'm going to agree with you in just one aspect: we disagree. That's all. You're an amazing debater, but my personal history was marked, far too much, by men like Franco and Pinochet to see benefits in their respective terms. Whatever apologies or "advantages" you may still see in thier governments and methods, I won't ever see.

Allende was not into killing people. Maybe the Communists and others who criticised him for his social democratic ideals, had a few good points to make. Allende refused to arm the Chilean people when the military coup became inevitable.

Allende believed in peaceful socialism via the ballot box but Marshall Green (Google him! He also helped to topple Indonesia's Soekarno and Australia's Gough Whitlam) and General Pinochet had other ideas.
What? Says who? Every fact that has been presented in this thread says otherwise. Allende was bringing Chile down a road infested with left-wing paramilitaries (tolerated, encouraged and supported by Allende to rise up and control society), censored media opposition and worked every angle possible to bring Chile into line as a Marxist totalitarian state.

Please, answer me where you could have found the incorrect assumption that he belived in 'peaceful socialism via the ballot box'? How ridiculous. :p

You didn't read any of my posts in this thread, did you?

binary solution set there- Allende was killing people on the Soviet dime instead, so he must be better, right?? Riiiight? So, basically it's okay, if it's a left-wing government, but it's a crime against all humanity if it's right-wing or centrist?

I smell a double-standard here alright. Find me five people in the west, who know Pinochet's name, and will actually justify his actions-even among the Conservatives in the U.S.

You'll have a hard time unless you edge out into the crazy fringe side the right-the sheet-wearing psychotics of old dixie, maybe, or the skinheads that nobody wants to tolerate (including republicans.)

On the other side of this, find five people on the Left who WILL condemn Allende. You can't, because they won't. Even if you hit them in the face with HIS torture chambers, HIS violations of basic human rights, HIS warrantless detentions, HIS death-squads and support of violent groups attacking the neighbours (Shining Path, FARC, etc.), not one Leftist is willing to condemn the man-because he was doing it "For the Progressive Cause".

Excuses, misdirections, redirections, outright lies, and rationalizations, sure, but no condemnations.
Your point is summed up perfectly in this piece from the Washington Post I have come to love:


For some he was the epitome of an evil dictator. That was partly because he helped to overthrow, with U.S. support, an elected president considered saintly by the international left: socialist Salvador Allende, whose responsibility for creating the conditions for the 1973 coup is usually overlooked.

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.


**Here comes my favorite part**
By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

The contrast between Cuba and Chile more than 30 years after Mr. Pinochet's coup is a reminder of a famous essay written by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the provocative and energetic scholar and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who died Thursday. In "Dictatorships and Double Standards," a work that caught the eye of President Ronald Reagan, Ms. Kirkpatrick argued that right-wing dictators such as Mr. Pinochet were ultimately less malign than communist rulers, in part because their regimes were more likely to pave the way for liberal democracies. She, too, was vilified by the left. Yet by now it should be obvious: She was right.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121101166.html

I think that anyone who can justify the coup against Allende and the shocking aftermath that followed - where left wingers were detained and executed, has to be a fascist.
I don't believe in arguing with fascists.
If you are a fascist, why argue? Just take the CIA's money and go on a killing spree.
A few falacies here:
1. You are stating that the CIA are fascists, when by definiton of the word Fascism, they are clearly not a fascist organization.

Educate yourself on this, please.
Fascism is a totalitarian nationalist ideology[1][2] that seeks to form a mass movement of militants who are willing to engage in violence against their political opponents and groups or individuals that the movement deems to be enemies.[3] Fascism opposes the political ideologies of communism, liberalism and conservatism as well as political concepts and systems such as democracy, individualism, materialism, pacifism, and pluralism.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Some fascists see themselves as advocating a third position alternative to both capitalism and communism.

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism (including collectivism and populism based on nationalist values); Third Position (including class collaboration, corporatism, economic planning, mixed economy, national socialism, national syndicalism, protectionism,); totalitarianism (including dictatorship, indoctrination, major social interventionism, and statism); and militarism.[13][14]

2. You seem to be stating that anyone who opposed this, was a fascist:
These [Constitutional] violations included: support of armed groups (**Left-Wing Paramilitary Groups**), illegal arrests, torture, muzzling the press, manipulating education, not allowing people to leave the country, confiscating private property, forming seditious organizations, and usurping powers belonging to the Judiciary, Congress, and the Treasury. The Resolution held that such acts were committed in a systematic manner, with the aim of installing in Chile "a totalitarian system," that is, a Communist dictatorship.

3. Again, you are bringing this off track by blaming the CIA as if they are some world-controlling evil behind every force of bad in the univerise. In which event, be gone, troll. :rolleyes:

Actually, Allende believed in Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro. Who were less than peaceful.

Also, OMG I can't believe I've only just found this now. The source is obviously extremely biased, but it adds lots of well-researched facts: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004624.html
Excellent find. I shall add it to my arsenal. Vielen Dank.
TAI, I'm going to agree with you in just one aspect: we disagree. That's all. You're an amazing debater, but my personal history was marked, far too much, by men like Franco and Pinochet to see benefits in their respective terms. Whatever apologies or "advantages" you may still see in thier governments and methods, I won't ever see.
Very fair of you. I agree to disagree, then.

Y sabes que voy a estudiar/vivir en Espana el ano proximo? Debemos ir al centro de tu Ciuado o algo y beber algo. :)

Very fair of you. I agree to disagree, then.

Wakatta.

Y sabes que voy a estudiar/vivir en Espana el ano proximo? Debemos ir al centro de tu Ciuado o algo y beber algo. :)

Estudiarás en Madrid? En cuál institución? Yo soy egresada de La Complutence de Madrid. Vale, cuando estés acá, me dejas saber para concertar algo y nos vamos de juerga por Madrid. Un par de cervezas siempre viene bien.:wink:

Wakatta.
:confused:


Estudiarás en Madrid? En cuál institución? Yo soy egresada de La Complutence de Madrid. Vale, cuando estés acá, me dejas saber para concertar algo y nos vamos de juerga por Madrid. Un par de cervezas siempre viene bien.:wink:
Bueno, pero voy a estudiar en Sevilla. Mira (http://www.ics-seville.org/).

Un par de cervezas siempre viene bien.:wink:
Claro. Podriamos hacer algo en Sevilla o otra Ciudad, o tengo que esperar hasta que yo este in Madrid? :p

DAMN FORUM... eat away my post!!!

Any way, what I just wanted to say with my long post, I'll resume:

TAI. Good for you that you never had to live in one of the tyrannies you defend so much. You would not like them.

History will judge Pinochet as what he was (an assassin) and Allende as what Pinochet made him (a martyr). No matter how much nonsense the neoliberal (economist, chicagobyz, etc...) throw at it.

Chavez I believe will go the same way.

TAI. Good for you that you never had to live in one of the tyrannies you defend so much. You would not like them.
And good for me that I never had to live under a marxist who was turning my state into a marxist totalitarian dicatorship that censored opposition, promoted left wing violence, tortured to opponents, took away my job and money and tried to brainwash its students.

Marxist tyranny has no place in the civilized world.

History will judge Pinochet as what he was (an assassin) and Allende as what Pinochet made him (a martyr). No matter how much nonsense the neoliberal (economist, chicagobyz, etc...) throw at it.
You are making yourself look quite foolish by having such blind devotion to Allende that you are willing to call a large majority of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and their resolution against him and his 20 or so violations of the constitution and of national law, "The Economist, Chicagoboys, etc..." Why do you hate logic and reason?

Allende is not nor was he ever a martyr. He built his terrible, unconstitutional, marxist, tyrannical regime and deserved every second of it falling down around him, leading up to his death. I can only hope that he felt broken and destroyed, a complete failure, just before shooting himself. Serves him right for starving his people and subjecting them to his ideological tyranny. I hope he felt like Hitler, just before they shared their similar ending to their lives and their horrible regimes.
Chavez I believe will go the same way.
I can only hope so.

This is for Heikoku, Santiago I, Neesika, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Gift-of-god ......

Wow. You totally ignored my previous post that showed how all this crap is wrong.

Like you always do. I wonder why people think you're a good debater when you just repost the same crap over and over and ignore the intelligent rebuttals.

Anyway, stop changing the subject. How was the coup against Allende not justified?

He was democratically elected, and he was replaced by an authoritarian dictator through foreign support. So, both democracy and sovereignty were completely thrown out the window. The fact that one has to point this out suggests that you are not even intelligent enough to grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of political science.

Actually, Allende believed in Chairman Mao and Fidel Castro. Who were less than peaceful.

Also, OMG I can't believe I've only just found this now. The source is obviously extremely biased, but it adds lots of well-researched facts: http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004624.html

I only got to the first paragraph before I found factual errors. It claims that the US involvement has been completely revealed while soviet involvement hasn't. Obviously the author is unaware of the Mitrokhin Archive. And the author assumes that the full extent of US involvement was revealed during the Clinton era.

:confused:

That means : Understood, in Japanese.

Bueno, pero voy a estudiar en Sevilla. Mira (http://www.ics-seville.org/).

Sevillano por institución, olé! Sevilla te va a encantar.

Claro. Podriamos hacer algo en Sevilla o otra Ciudad, o tengo que esperar hasta que yo este in Madrid? :p

Asumo visitarás Madrid en algún punto. Si estoy en el país, podemos irnos de juerga. ;)

Wow. You totally ignored my previous post that showed how all this crap is wrong.
Hah, yeah right. You linked me to Allende responding to this resolution against him....but simply because he stated his reasoning for violating the constitution and national law, doesn't change a thing. He still did it.

If a criminal is brought to court for breaking 20 (of the most serious laws you can think of), simply listening to his reasoning doesn't change the fact that he did break those laws. Even more so if he signed a contract before breaking those laws, specifically stating that he would not break those laws.

(Congress had Allende do exactly that before allowing him to take command of the counry, stating he must swear and sign that he would not violate the constitution. He did so, on around 20 or so different counts)

Like you always do. I wonder why people think you're a good debater when you just repost the same crap over and over and ignore the intelligent rebuttals.
Intelligent rebuttals? :p What, you posting Allende's response and saying, "see it's all better now?"

He was democratically elected,
Two problems here that were already discussed but you must have missed them because you would never ignore them simply because they disprove your, eh, shall we call it logic?

1. Leaders who are democratically elected can still become tyrants who, by Western standards (since the times of the enlightenment) are subject to removal.

2. He was also democratically instructed to stop his constitutional violations and then the military was democratically requested to put an end to Allende's constitutional violations.

So the Military, under Pinochet, was just fufilling its Democartic duty to its Congress and its people. If you want to argue whether the Pinochet government was better than Allende's, by all means, we can do so...but you may, logically and factually, state that the coup against Allende was unjust.

and he was replaced by an authoritarian dictator through foreign support. So, both democracy and sovereignty were completely thrown out the window. The fact that one has to point this out suggests that you are not even intelligent enough to grasp even the most rudimentary aspects of political science.
Wrong, see above. And don't be so quick to bash mypolitical science skills (which, it seems doesn't say much for you since I am beating you in political debate). To say that an elected person cannot become an authoritarian tyrant is to say that Hitler's story didn't exist.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE4AG4BG20081117?sp=true

Chavez: Democracy, now with wiretapping.

This is bizarre, but mostly because when Nixon did it, the shit hit the fan. When Chavez did it, he made a commercial out of it. Dios mio, este caudillo....

Hah, yeah right. You linked me to Allende responding to this resolution against him....but simply because he stated his reasoning for violating the constitution and national law, doesn't change a thing. He still did it.

You didn't read it, did you?

He does not explain why he broke the law, because he didn't. He explains why the accusations made in that resolution are flawed and illegal, as Congress had already tried to bring these accusations against him in the proper manner defined by the constitution, and they failed. He also points out that exhortation by the legislative branch of government of the armed forces is illegal as it forces the armed forces to play a aprtisan role in politics, and has the legislative branch assuming the powers of the executive.

It continues with even more logical explanations as to why the document you posted is flawed and illegal. Notice how he quotes the Chilean constitution in the fourth paragraph? That's where he backs up his legal arguments with source material. Even non-Spanish speakers should be able to read that.

1. Leaders who are democratically elected can still become tyrants who, by Western standards (since the times of the enlightenment) are subject to removal.

That is true. That is not the case here, though.

2. He was also democratically instructed to stop his constitutional violations and then the military was democratically requested to put an end to Allende's constitutional violations.

So the Military, under Pinochet, was just fufilling its Democartic duty to its Congress and its people. If you want to argue whether the Pinochet government was better than Allende's, by all means, we can do so...but you may, logically and factually, state that the coup against Allende was unjust.

So, I translated and paraphrased the first few paragraphs above so that you would understand that Allende was not violating the constitution as you claim, and that it was illegal and unconstitutional for the Congress to request that the military put an end to the Allende government.

Now do you understand that the coup was illegal and unconstitutional?

So the Military, under Pinochet, was just fufilling its Democartic duty to its Congress and its people. If you want to argue whether the Pinochet government was better than Allende's, by all means, we can do so...but you may, logically and factually, state that the coup against Allende was unjust.

Wait... Pinochet's murderers were just doing the people's will? Christ, you have a confusing sense of Democracy. Maybe you missed this, but most people don't like being hunted by Death Squads and the like.

I don't give a flying fuck about Allende, but if you're attempting to defend Pinochet, you're nothing less than a monster.

And good for me that I never had to live under a marxist who was turning my state into a marxist totalitarian dicatorship that censored opposition, promoted left wing violence, tortured to opponents, took away my job and money and tried to brainwash its students.

Marxist tyranny has no place in the civilized world.

Neither have neoliberal tyrannies.


You are making yourself look quite foolish by having such blind devotion to Allende that you are willing to call a large majority of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and their resolution against him and his 20 or so violations of the constitution and of national law, "The Economist, Chicagoboys, etc..." Why do you hate logic and reason?

Now you are making yourself look foolish. Logic and reason. :D That really made me laugh. Getting a little bit ideological fundie I see. :tongue:



Allende is not nor was he ever a martyr.


I have no devotion for Allende, but thats how he will pass to history.


He built his terrible, unconstitutional, marxist, tyrannical regime and deserved every second of it falling down around him, leading up to his death. I can only hope that he felt broken and destroyed, a complete failure, just before shooting himself. Serves him right for starving his people and subjecting them to his ideological tyranny. I hope he felt like Hitler, just before they shared their similar ending to their lives and their horrible regimes.


So much hate, so little reason. Don't get so emotional. :p

Wait... Pinochet's murderers were just doing the people's will? Christ, you have a confusing sense of Democracy. Maybe you missed this, but most people don't like being hunted by Death Squads and the like.

I don't give a flying fuck about Allende, but if you're attempting to defend Pinochet, you're nothing less than a monster.

Read the thread, please.

I have no devotion for Allende, but thats how he will pass to history.

I think TAI should interview Allende's family, like author Isabel Allende (who lives in exile since she was a teen in the US), and ask them if Allende's destitution and subsequent assassination was the preferable choice for Chile.

I think TAI should interview Allende's family, like author Isabel Allende (who lives in exile since she was a teen in the US), and ask them if Allende's destitution and subsequent assassination was the preferable choice for Chile.

Well considering he takes info from the chicago boys interviewing Isabel Allende may balance his perspective.:D

Neither have neoliberal tyrannies.


Not that I agree with TAI or anything here, but this is an oxymoron (yes, I'm going to assume that the word neoliberal actually has meaning, and isn't a new vague contradictory and meaningless buzzword with no practical application to modern politics). Vaguely, neoliberal is about liberty, i.e. economic liberty and social liberty. Liberty is the direct opposite of tyranny, so to describe tyranny as neoliberal is incomprehensible.

Well considering he takes info from the chicago boys interviewing Isabel Allende may balance his perspective.:D

Perhaps he should search for her takes on her uncle's assassination by Pinochet's boys. I'm sure these are translated into English.

Not that I agree with TAI or anything here, but this is an oxymoron (yes, I'm going to assume that the word neoliberal actually has meaning, and isn't a new vague contradictory and meaningless buzzword with no practical application to modern politics). Vaguely, neoliberal is about liberty, i.e. economic liberty and social liberty. Liberty is the direct opposite of tyranny, so to describe tyranny as neoliberal is incomprehensible.

I thought he was using it the way that political science academics use it, to define a system of government that embraces the old liberal economic values of unregulated capitalism. Such a system need not have social liberty.

I believe the term has also been used by Milton Friedman to describe Pinochet's government.

Not that I agree with TAI or anything here, but this is an oxymoron (yes, I'm going to assume that the word neoliberal actually has meaning, and isn't a new vague contradictory and meaningless buzzword with no practical application to modern politics). Vaguely, neoliberal is about liberty, i.e. economic liberty and social liberty. Liberty is the direct opposite of tyranny, so to describe tyranny as neoliberal is incomprehensible.

Well no. Neoliberalism as I understand it is about the economic liberties of the elite. Not everybodys economic liberties and not social liberty.

So yes you can have a neoliberal tyranny.

Read the thread, please.

Read it. I maintain the same position:

If TAI thinks that Allende's politics were an excuse for Pinochet's abuses long after Allende's suicide, then he's a monster.

I thought he was using it the way that political science academics use it, to define a system of government that embraces the old liberal economic values of unregulated capitalism.

Well, academics don't tend to use that word very much, especially not economists since it's rather vague and not very useful. When it is used academically however (note, this is different from how political activists and writers use the term), it generally describes right libertarianism (for instance, political compass describes the bottom right segment sometimes as neoliberal (liberal socially and economically)). However, amongst people like Klein, it is used in such a way to remove all meaning from it, and often used to actually refer to neo-conservative governments, almost the exact opposite of neo-liberal, since neo-conservatives like big government, protectionism (at least for them) and are socially conservative.


I believe the term has also been used by Milton Friedman to describe Pinochet's government.

Well, Friedman WAS actually highly critical of Pinochet, but it wouldn't be inaccurate to describe his economics as neoliberal, at least in contrast to the former government.

Well, academics don't tend to use that word very much, especially not economists since it's rather vague and not very useful. When it is used academically however (note, this is different from how political activists and writers use the term), it generally describes right libertarianism (for instance, political compass describes the bottom right segment sometimes as neoliberal (liberal socially and economically)). However, amongst people like Klein, it is used in such a way to remove all meaning from it, and often used to actually refer to neo-conservative governments, almost the exact opposite of neo-liberal, since neo-conservatives like big government, protectionism (at least for them) and are socially conservative.


Yeah... Neo-liberal doesn't hold a whole lot of academic meaning. Most "Neo-liberals" are just traditional liberals (in the poli-sci sense of the word, something that has nothing to do with Liberals or Leftists), given a new face by the media.

Well, academics don't tend to use that word very much, especially not economists since it's rather vague and not very useful. When it is used academically however (note, this is different from how political activists and writers use the term), it generally describes right libertarianism (for instance, political compass describes the bottom right segment sometimes as neoliberal (liberal socially and economically)). However, amongst people like Klein, it is used in such a way to remove all meaning from it, and often used to actually refer to neo-conservative governments, almost the exact opposite of neo-liberal, since neo-conservatives like big government, protectionism (at least for them) and are socially conservative.



Well, Friedman WAS actually highly critical of Pinochet, but it wouldn't be inaccurate to describe his economics as neoliberal, at least in contrast to the former government.

My experince with academics differs from yours, but this is rather a semantic argument. If you want to define neo-liberal as socially liberal as well, then Pinochet was not that, obviously. The only important point out of my incredibly minor disagreemtn with you about this is the following: Pinochet serves as an example of how free-market economics are not necessarily related to social and civil freedom. Apparently, you can have one without the other.

Pinochet serves as an example of how free-market economics are not necessarily related to social and civil freedom. Apparently, you can have one without the other.

Agreed, although I am concerned with the idea that some people hold (and where Pinochet is constantly used as an example). This idea being that, assuming the US are trying to export through force free market economics, then there must be something inherently wrong with the free market system itself because of this, which doesn't follow.

Agreed, although I am concerned with the idea that some people hold (and where Pinochet is constantly used as an example). This idea being that, assuming the US are trying to export through force free market economics, then there must be something inherently wrong with the free market system itself because of this, which doesn't follow.

I always thought it was a bit more indirect. People tend to criticise the US, IMF's, and WHO's insistence on free maket economic policies because it opens the economies of smaller and less developed nations to US economic hegemony, thereby causing a threat to economic sovereignty. It is not the free market principles that bother them so much as the lack of control over the local economy that bothers them.

Agreed, although I am concerned with the idea that some people hold (and where Pinochet is constantly used as an example). This idea being that, assuming the US are trying to export through force free market economics, then there must be something inherently wrong with the free market system itself because of this, which doesn't follow.

Well, there is something wrong with the free market system, if you're a small country with a hothouse industry model. It's incredibly expensive to open up to the outside world, because a lot of your industries will fail. In the long run, you stand to make more money and have a healthier, but in the short run, it's painful as hell. Same reason we're still protectionist here in the states, in many industries.

Pinochet's Chile was the ultimate free market experiment. Strict repression of labour unions, and civil liberties so that neither force could interfere with pure capitalism. But it failed. It failed very, very badly...and I have explained many times how and why, though TAI has never once addressed those explanations, preferring instead to dwell on the hypothetical "Allende would have been worse" scenario.

Because that's where people like TAI live. In the hypothetical. Facts are much too difficult.

I always thought it was a bit more indirect. People tend to criticise the US, IMF's, and WHO's insistence on free maket economic policies because it opens the economies of smaller and less developed nations to US economic hegemony, thereby causing a threat to economic sovereignty. It is not the free market principles that bother them so much as the lack of control over the local economy that bothers them.

Well, the IMF doesn't actually nescecerally demand free market economics, in fact there have been instances where the IMF have actually asked for an increase in tariffs to stabilize the economy, thereby making them less open to US markets. However, I am more concerned with your feelings towards the WTO (you meant WTO right?). The WTO is an international forum to promote removal of trading barriers (note free trade and free markets are different things), it is has no political power. It is merely an agreement, that evolved out of the GATT, no country is forced to join the WTO agreement. You can see how the WTO has little influence because it has been overall not very effective at removing trade barriers, especially on where it matters (for instance, the US still has very high tariffs on things like textiles, which really affects developing countries because that is one of the main things they export, they can't afford and are not productive enough to export auto mobiles for instance). Their main policy is non-discriminatory trade, and that all trade barrier reductions must be reciprocated amongst all in the agreement. There are exceptions for developing countries, who do not have to reciprocate all barrier removals if they are really struggling, under the GSPs system. Because of this, many of the very strong adherents of free-trade criticise the WTO for not being free-trade enough. Also important is that the WTO do not insist on anything to do with your internal economic policies, it can be as planned as you like, it only aims to promote free-er trade across nations and remove discriminatory trading.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE4AG4BG20081117?sp=true

Chavez: Democracy, now with wiretapping.

This is bizarre, but mostly because when Nixon did it, the shit hit the fan. When Chavez did it, he made a commercial out of it. Dios mio, este caudillo....
Yay for Leftist-Authoritarianism.....

You didn't read it, did you?

He does not explain why he broke the law, because he didn't. He explains why the accusations made in that resolution are flawed and illegal, as Congress had already tried to bring these accusations against him in the proper manner defined by the constitution, and they failed. He also points out that exhortation by the legislative branch of government of the armed forces is illegal as it forces the armed forces to play a aprtisan role in politics, and has the legislative branch assuming the powers of the executive.

It continues with even more logical explanations as to why the document you posted is flawed and illegal. Notice how he quotes the Chilean constitution in the fourth paragraph? That's where he backs up his legal arguments with source material. Even non-Spanish speakers should be able to read that.
Yes, saw it...and my point still stands:

"If a criminal is brought to court for breaking 20 (of the most serious laws you can think of), simply listening to his reasoning doesn't change the fact that he did break those laws. Even more so if he signed a contract before breaking those laws, specifically stating that he would not break those laws.

(Congress had Allende do exactly that before allowing him to take command of the counry, stating he must swear and sign that he would not violate the constitution. He did so, on around 20 or so different counts)"


That is true. That is not the case here, though.
Indeed it was. How is removing a tyrant from power not the case here? Are you actually claiming that Allende was not injust and tyrannical?

So, I translated and paraphrased the first few paragraphs above so that you would understand that Allende was not violating the constitution as you claim, and that it was illegal and unconstitutional for the Congress to request that the military put an end to the Allende government.
Now do you understand that the coup was illegal and unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]
It's not I who claim Allende voilated the constitution. Rather it is I who have quoted the Chilean Congress stating factually that he has violated the constitution, around 20 times. Also, Allende was already pushing the Military into politics (into his branch of politics, naturally):
It should be pointed out that a year earlier Allende himself opened the doors of politics to the military by placing various generals and admirals in key ministries. For several months, he had even appointed Army Commander-in-Chief Carlos Prats to the Ministry of the Interior, a highly controversial and important political office. In August 1973, an admiral was made Minister of Finance, an office that was key to the economic management of the country.

Wait... Pinochet's murderers were just doing the people's will? Christ, you have a confusing sense of Democracy. Maybe you missed this, but most people don't like being hunted by Death Squads and the like.

I don't give a flying fuck about Allende, but if you're attempting to defend Pinochet, you're nothing less than a monster.
This isn't about Pinochet right now. It's about whether or not the coup against Allende was just. It clearly was, as all the evidence shows.

Neither have neoliberal tyrannies.
Right-Authoritarian regimes that offer partial freedom, that is, economic freedom, are less malign than Left-Authoritarian regimes that offers no freedom, economic nor political. They have, by nature, less power and influence over soceity (since they don't control the economy) and thus are more likely to give way to free societies. My point is totally proven in Chile, once Pinochet stepped down, peacefully.


Now you are making yourself look foolish. Logic and reason. :D That really made me laugh. Getting a little bit ideological fundie I see. :tongue:
This still stand, unanswered:
"You are making yourself look quite foolish by having such blind devotion to Allende that you are willing to call a large majority of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and their resolution against him and his 20 or so violations of the constitution and of national law, "The Economist, Chicagoboys, etc..."


I have no devotion for Allende, but thats how he will pass to history.
Only if people do not learn the facts of the situation.


So much hate, so little reason. Don't get so emotional. :p
Hate marxists tyrants? You bet I do. As should every free citizen of the world who values his independent existence and ability to choose how he shall live his own life.
I think TAI should interview Allende's family, like author Isabel Allende (who lives in exile since she was a teen in the US), and ask them if Allende's destitution and subsequent assassination was the preferable choice for Chile.
It would be interesting.

Well considering he takes info from the chicago boys interviewing Isabel Allende may balance his perspective.:D
What is wrong with the Chicago Boys?
Perhaps he should search for her takes on her uncle's assassination by Pinochet's boys. I'm sure these are translated into English.
I did a quick look, but could you link me if you find something?
Well, academics don't tend to use that word very much, especially not economists since it's rather vague and not very useful. When it is used academically however (note, this is different from how political activists and writers use the term), it generally describes right libertarianism (for instance, political compass describes the bottom right segment sometimes as neoliberal (liberal socially and economically)). However, amongst people like Klein, it is used in such a way to remove all meaning from it, and often used to actually refer to neo-conservative governments, almost the exact opposite of neo-liberal, since neo-conservatives like big government, protectionism (at least for them) and are socially conservative.
This is the meaning of Neo-Liberal I use and think is correct:
Neoliberalism is a label referring to a recent[when?] reemergence of liberalism among political and economic scholars and policy-makers.The label is used by critics and opponents of liberalism, and according to one study, "the concept itself has become an imprecise exhortation in much of the literature, often describing any tendency deemed to be undesirable".[1] Liberals advocate policies such as individual liberty, free markets, and free trade.[citation needed] According to geographer David Harvey, liberalism "proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade".[2]



Well, Friedman WAS actually highly critical of Pinochet, but it wouldn't be inaccurate to describe his economics as neoliberal, at least in contrast to the former government.
Take this how you want to:
In 1975, two years after the military coup that toppled the government of Salvador Allende, the economy of Chile experienced a crisis. Friedman accepted the invitation of a private foundation to visit Chile and lecture on principles of economic freedom. Friedman also met with the military dictator, President Augusto Pinochet, during his visit, but he did not serve as a formal advisor to the Chilean government. Instead, Chilean graduates of The Chicago School of Economics and its new local chapters were appointed to key positions in the new government, which allowed them to advise the dictator on economic policies in accord with the School's economic doctrine.

According to his critics, Friedman did not criticize Pinochet's dictatorship at the time, nor the assassinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, or other atrocities that were well-known by then.[41] Later, in Free to Choose, he said the following: "Chile is not a politically free system and I do not condone the political system ... the conditions of the people in the past few years has been getting better and not worse. They would be still better to get rid of the junta and to be able to have a free democratic system."[42]

When he went to receive his Nobel prize in Stockholm, he was met by demonstrations. In an interview on the PBS program Commanding Heights in 2000, Friedman attributed these demonstrations by opponents he recognized from earlier occasions to communists seeking to discredit anyone with even the slightest connection to Pinochet — such as himself — adding that "there was no doubt that there was a concerted effort to tar and feather me".[43]

Friedman defended his role in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the move towards open market policies not only improved the economic situation in Chile but also contributed to the softening of Pinochet's rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government in 1990. That idea followed from Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He stressed that the lectures he gave in Chile were the same lectures he later gave in China and other socialist states.[44] In the 2000 PBS documentary The Commanding Heights, Friedman continued to claim that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main point that freer markets led to freer people, and that Chile's unfree economy had led to the military government. Friedman argued that the economic liberalization he advocated led to the end of military rule and a free Chile.

Read it. I maintain the same position:

If TAI thinks that Allende's politics were an excuse for Pinochet's abuses long after Allende's suicide, then he's a monster.

I repeat.

This has nothing to do with Pinochet, right now..but everything to do with whether Allende was a tyrant or not and whether or not the coup against him was just.

As I said.

Strict repression of labour unions

This could be argued as counter to the free market.


, and civil liberties

Nothing to do with markets.


so that neither force could interfere with pure capitalism.

It was hardly 'pure' capitalism.

Again, not defending Pinochet here, just the market.

Pinochet's Chile was the ultimate free market experiment. Strict repression of labour unions, and civil liberties so that neither force could interfere with pure capitalism. But it failed. It failed very, very badly...and I have explained many times how and why, though TAI has never once addressed those explanations, preferring instead to dwell on the hypothetical "Allende would have been worse" scenario.

Because that's where people like TAI live. In the hypothetical. Facts are much too difficult.

Ah, good..I was hoping you'd come back and respond to this thread and my post.

We are not talking about Pinochet right now...though I'd be glad to get on that later...we are talking about, as I've said, whether or not Allende was a tyrant and whether or not the coup against him was just.

A large majority of the Chilean Congress says yes, he was a tyrant and pleaded for the military to put his constitutional violations to an end: (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14220136&postcount=276)

Do you deny that? Because you denied it before I showed you the evidence.

It would be interesting.


What is wrong with the Chicago Boys?

I did a quick look, but could you link me if you find something?

Voilá.

http://www.archivochile.com/S_Allende_UP/doc_sobre_sallende/SAsobre0041.pdf

No saldré de La Moneda si no es muerto o cuando termine mi mandato. No voy a traicionar al pueblo.

Salvador Allende, 9 days before the military coup

Voilá.

http://www.archivochile.com/S_Allende_UP/doc_sobre_sallende/SAsobre0041.pdf
Interesting indeed. And I thought it was fascinating how close she was to all the action, but it doesn't really change my views on the entire coup, nor change the facts about Allende's regime.

Interesting stuff about Allende's death:

(lol at Castro, that ridiculous communist and liar)

At the time and for many years after, his supporters nearly uniformly presumed that he was killed by the forces staging the coup, and many theories have been made up to imply he was ruthlessly assassinated. In Havana's Plaza de la Revolución on September 28, 1973, Fidel Castro told a crowd of 1 million Cubans that Allende had died in La Moneda wrapped in a Chilean flag, firing at the army with Fidel's rifle. Another version says that Allende was killed in combat on the steps outside the Presidential Palace. In public addresses after Allende's death, Fidel Castro continued to promote the story that Allende had died while exchanging gunfire with Chilean troops but spoke of Allende's suicide as a fact in 2002[9]. However some supporters still insist that Allende was killed by Pinochet's military forces while defending the palace.

In recent years, the view he committed suicide has become more accepted, particularly as different testimonies are confirming the details of the suicide in news and documentary interviews.[10] Also, members of Allende's immediate family including his wife and his daughter [11], always outspoken, never disputed that it was a suicide. [11]

Allende's final speech to Chile:

"Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, the great avenues will again be opened through which will pass free men to construct a better society. Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!"

Typical. "Free men", as long as they agreed with his particular brand of Marxism, naturally. :rolleyes:

Interesting indeed. And I thought it was fascinating how close she was to all the action, but it doesn't really change my views on the entire coup, nor change the facts about Allende's regime.

I'm not providing you with that information so you change your views about a government you have never lived under and that has never touched you (and, subsequently, that you cannot truly understand). I'm providing you with the views of one of Allende's closest relatives, his niece. As simple as that.

Besides, we already agreed to disagree. I'm not in the habit of wasting my time.

Es o no es así?

Yes, saw it...and my point still stands...He did so, on around 20 or so different counts)"

No. Your point and your analogy are completely wrong. It would be more like someone accusing someone of a crime, failing to make the charges stick, and then trying to get the cop to imprison the second guy anyways, even though he doesn't have the right to tell the cop what to do.

Look, I know it is easier for you to ignore what I said and simply repeat yourself, but it doesn't make you look smarter.

For example, you have yet to address the simple fact that the Chilean constitution explicitly forbade the intervention of the military into partisan politics. Nor did you address the fact that it was against the same constitution for the congress to tell the military to do anything.

You also ignored the simple fact that Allende already adressed these charges in a legal court.

As soon as you address these points, you will have shown that you can actually follow the legal discussion.

Indeed it was. How is removing a tyrant from power not the case here? Are you actually claiming that Allende was not injust and tyrannical?

Allende never stepped outside the rule of law. His opponents did.

It's not I who claim Allende voilated the constitution. Rather it is I who have quoted the Chilean Congress stating factually that he has violated the constitution, around 20 times.

Actually, you quoted the Chilean congress claiming that he violated the constitution, and you must have misread it as a factual statement.

Also, Allende was already pushing the Military into politics (into his branch of politics, naturally):

I already addressed this. You ignored it.

Here:

....Appointing military officials to high positions in government is not the same thing. Unless you believe that Colin Powell's appointment to Sec. of State was a military intervention to influence the US economy.

I'm not providing you with that information so you change your views about a government you have never lived under and that has never touched you (and, subsequently, that you cannot truly understand). I'm providing you with the views of one of Allende's closest relatives, his niece. As simple as that.

Besides, we already agreed to disagree. I'm not in the habit of wasting my time.

Es o no es así?
Si, si si...perdoname!

I'm so used to being on the defensive. :wink:

But yes, interesting link, in any event. Graphic..I could almost see the bombs flying.

*sigh*

So this is your new tack. Can't actually support the lie of Pinochet's 'economic miracle', so you're going to focus on the legality of the coup?

Alright.

Allende had 36% of the vote. He thus needed to form a coalition with the Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats agreed to enter into such a coalition on the condition that he sign a "Statute of Guarantees". I'd first like to point out that this is not, as you have characterised it, a 'contract'. Heads of state cannot, as a matter of international law, be held to a contract that in any way interferes with their mandate as said head of state. You cannot ask Obama to sign a 'contract' promising he will never exercise one of his powers once he is sworn in as president.

The "Statute of Guarantees" simply outlined the manner in which the coalition was entered into, and what principles were agreed to. It guided the coalition, it did not bind Allende. The Constitution bound him.
Some information (http://books.google.ca/books?id=hzrwMb3UppYC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Chile+%22Statute+of+Guarantees%22&source=web&ots=-64Aq8vKq9&sig=UaVZu04ULMbYsGaRoUh8HXsn85s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) on what this “Statute of Guarantees” contained:

A pledge to respect the rights of all political parties, the right to private (Catholic provided) education, a monopoly of arms (which he never violated despite repeated requests that he arm the people), chain of command and the non-political character of the armed forces. (Note, that is an actual constitutional requirement...the armed forced were forbidden to interfere in partisan politics, full stop.) The Christian Democrats felt that he was violating the spirit of the agreement, and eventually sponsored a NON-BINDING congressional resolution condemning these supposed governmental illegalities. Of course, Frei, the leader of the Christian Democrats thought he was going to be made president...and got very huffy when the junta closed Congress and created an ACTUAL dictatorship.

Amusingly enough, Jaime Castillo...who helped draft this Statute of Guarantees, ended up as director of the Chilean Human Rights Commission which was mandated to investigate the abuses of the Pinochet regime.

To reiterate, the resolution was non-binding, not-legal, not capable of actually giving political or legal legitimacy to the coup. Your claims of ‘just action’ fail.

Now, in regards to your claims of illegality...even this (http://www.lyd.com/english/setting.html) Washinton Post article which makes all sorts of allegations about Allende doesn't try to make that argument.

Sharp political divisions helped Allende get and hold power for three years despite his radicalism and his reckless economics. He cleverly used the law to shield himself while he consolidated that power.

Show me where these 20 or so constitutional violations were adjudicated and pronounced upon. Ah hell...just give me a list of them even.

I repeat.

This has nothing to do with Pinochet, right now..but everything to do with whether Allende was a tyrant or not and whether or not the coup against him was just.

As I said.

No. You don't get to dodge things like that. You have stated that you believe Pinochet was somehow positive. You don't get to hide behind irrelevancies like Allende to hold those beliefs. Either defend them, or do away with them, because you are supporting a monster in the name of fighting another, lesser, monster.

Si, si si...perdoname!

I'm so used to being on the defensive. :wink:

But yes, interesting link, in any event. Graphic..I could almost see the bombs flying.

Perhaps, TAI (a friendly advice) you should be more on the objective than the defensive or offensive side of things. I don't think people here missunderstand your position where Allende is concerned and that you're partial to Augusto Pinochet's government.

We understand that you prefer Pinochet's government (even after, time and time again, we've shown you evidence that Chileans suffered immensely under him), from what I possibly could take as a historian's point of view. And although we do understand this, it still baffles us (me, to be more specific) that you would consider AP's regime better than Allende's democratic government.

Augusto Pinochet was from the same stock Francisco Franco and Adolf Hitler and Benito Musolinni were, monster stock.

..snip..
Considering the legislative branched ask the military by majority vote to intervene and given the state of emergency because the legislative and executive branches weren't talking . Id let the coup slide.
Pretty much the military had two choices let the country destroy itself, or intervene. Id only hope our military would do the same.

Considering the legislative branched ask the military by majority vote to intervene and given the state of emergency because the legislative and executive branches weren't talking . Id let the coup slide.
Pretty much the military had two choices let the country destroy itself, or intervene. Id only hope our military would do the same.

You truly have no idea what you're asking for.

Considering the legislative branched ask the military by majority vote to intervene and given the state of emergency because the legislative and executive branches weren't talking . Id let the coup slide.
Pretty much the military had two choices let the country destroy itself, or intervene. Id only hope our military would do the same.

where are you from?

I thought he was using it the way that political science academics use it, to define a system of government that embraces the old liberal economic values of unregulated capitalism. Such a system need not have social liberty.

It's become more of a buzzword for policies that people on both the left and the right dislike. In reality, while less regulation is considered to be a good thing amongst neoliberals, neoliberal viewpoints tend to support liberal social policies as well. Pinochet, for instance, behaved in an economically liberal fashion, but an authoritarian social and political fashion.

I believe the term has also been used by Milton Friedman to describe Pinochet's government.

Friedman was an economist, and his focus was on the economic side of neoliberal policies, but that's not the only facet of neoliberalism that exists.

The policies that Pinochet implemented were a blend of authoritarianism and liberalism. Not pure-bred neoliberalism.

where are you from?

He's an American.

Considering the legislative branched ask the military by majority vote to intervene and given the state of emergency because the legislative and executive branches weren't talking . Id let the coup slide.
Pretty much the military had two choices let the country destroy itself, or intervene. Id only hope our military would do the same.

No.

The armed forces were constitutionally prohibited from doing what they did. The 'majority vote' you speak of was not legal. Not as in, recently made illegal, but rather not legal at all, in any sense of the word. There were legal methods at the disposal of the Congress to remove Allende. It's possible they would have eventually been used. THAT is how the scenario should have played out.

I don't give a flying monkey fart if you would let the coup slide, as long as you recognise it was illegal. The rest of your comments are unworthy of reply.

You truly have no idea what you're asking for.

that if you have a total break down of government and society a and a likely civil war Versus a military coup.
Id choose the military coup.
In some places like turkey it actually seems to work.

No.

The armed forces were constitutionally prohibited from doing what they did. The 'majority vote' you speak of was not legal. Not as in, recently made illegal, but rather not legal at all, in any sense of the word. There were legal methods at the disposal of the Congress to remove Allende. It's possible they would have eventually been used. THAT is how the scenario should have played out.

I don't give a flying monkey fart if you would let the coup slide, as long as you recognise it was illegal. The rest of your comments are unworthy of reply.

not everything just is legal. They did what they felt was required of them.

that if you have a total break down of government and society a and a likely civil war Versus a military coup.
Id choose the military coup.
In some places like turkey it actually seems to work.

Have you been in Turkey?

Have you been in Turkey?

yeah, likely say the best Muslim country to date.

Allende was a hero that sacrificed himself for the people
not some tyrant!!!

*sigh*

So this is your new tack. Can't actually support the lie of Pinochet's 'economic miracle', so you're going to focus on the legality of the coup?

Alright.

Allende had 36% of the vote. He thus needed to form a coalition with the Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats agreed to enter into such a coalition on the condition that he sign a "Statute of Guarantees". I'd first like to point out that this is not, as you have characterised it, a 'contract'. Heads of state cannot, as a matter of international law, be held to a contract that in any way interferes with their mandate as said head of state. You cannot ask Obama to sign a 'contract' promising he will never exercise one of his powers once he is sworn in as president.

The "Statute of Guarantees" simply outlined the manner in which the coalition was entered into, and what principles were agreed to. It guided the coalition, it did not bind Allende. The Constitution bound him.
Some information (http://books.google.ca/books?id=hzrwMb3UppYC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=Chile+%22Statute+of+Guarantees%22&source=web&ots=-64Aq8vKq9&sig=UaVZu04ULMbYsGaRoUh8HXsn85s&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) on what this “Statute of Guarantees” contained:

A pledge to respect the rights of all political parties, the right to private (Catholic provided) education, a monopoly of arms (which he never violated despite repeated requests that he arm the people), chain of command and the non-political character of the armed forces. (Note, that is an actual constitutional requirement...the armed forced were forbidden to interfere in partisan politics, full stop.) The Christian Democrats felt that he was violating the spirit of the agreement, and eventually sponsored a NON-BINDING congressional resolution condemning these supposed governmental illegalities. Of course, Frei, the leader of the Christian Democrats thought he was going to be made president...and got very huffy when the junta closed Congress and created an ACTUAL dictatorship.
I'd just like to point out - it was not him who violated the monopoly of arms, it was parts of his coalition which set up "Soviets" in factories, slums and other such locations, and decided to arm them as well. Allende was never a particularly strong leader, and he never had a good handle on what people supposedly on his side were doing. To the extent that the Congress condemned his government rather than his own person, they were correct.

And in many developing countries the military is supposed to stay out of partisan politics, but is openly recognised as the guarantor of the democratic order itself, in that it shouldn't intervene on behalf of any single party, but must serve to remove a party that is in the process of destroying the system as a whole. Say what you will, but when the government orders the police not to enforce supreme court findings, there's an issue. And finally, if the ruling party interferes in the military directly, it may not justify a coup in response, but it certainly makes it a lot more likely.

I only got to the first paragraph before I found factual errors. It claims that the US involvement has been completely revealed while soviet involvement hasn't. Obviously the author is unaware of the Mitrokhin Archive. And the author assumes that the full extent of US involvement was revealed during the Clinton era.
That's a rather minor point in the introduction. The interesting parts are the various political and economic policies and events that are outlined in the body. As it is, whether or not you agree with that particular sentence depends mostly on how trustworthy you consider that senate report as opposed to Mitrokhin (whose books weren't formally sanctioned by the government).

But I don't deny the obvious bias in the essay. I'm saying that it provides a lot of interesting stuff that I hadn't seen before.

Pinochet's Chile was the ultimate free market experiment. Strict repression of labour unions, and civil liberties so that neither force could interfere with pure capitalism. But it failed.
How the hell do unions and civil liberties interfere with capitalism?

It failed very, very badly...and I have explained many times how and why, though TAI has never once addressed those explanations, preferring instead to dwell on the hypothetical "Allende would have been worse" scenario.

Because that's where people like TAI live. In the hypothetical. Facts are much too difficult.
Pinochet's economic policies did a few things well: they fixed the inflation problem and they diversified the economy away from having to rely on one or two volatile exports. Those provided the stable base of solid growth near the end of his dictatorship that allowed subsequent governments to build modern Chile. I know TAI likes to claim more, but as far as I'm concerned, that's it. And the whole playing around with fixed exchange rates was idiocy, but I'm with Friedman on that.

But to somehow assert that thinking about whether an Allende government would have been worse is irrelevant, I don't understand. How are we supposed to judge changes of government if not by attaching hypotheticals to one side?

There were legal methods at the disposal of the Congress to remove Allende. It's possible they would have eventually been used. THAT is how the scenario should have played out.
Such as?

Such as?

Impeachment, recall, blocking legislation, etc, etc, etc.

Impeachment, recall, blocking legislation, etc, etc, etc.

none of which were in the Constitution of Chile. Well blocking legislation but, Allende's response was to prevent the police from upholding any legislation he did not like or upholding any court ruling he did not like.

Chile was already in tyranny under Allende.

none of which were in the Constitution of Chile.

Source?

that if you have a total break down of government and society a and a likely civil war Versus a military coup.
Id choose the military coup.
In some places like turkey it actually seems to work.

Which once again lets me see how ignorant you are on the subject. Do you know what a military coup entails? You should know, you're in the army. Do you know what military governments bring to a country? Do know how violent these are? What they do to the citizenry? No, you do not. If you did, you wouldn't be so adamant in saying you would prefer a military coup and subsequent government, to a system run democratically.

But I cannot ask you to understand. Like TAI, you have no firsthand experience of what it's like to grow up in absolutist, military based governments.

Source?
Actually, impeachment was in the constitution, but needed a two-thirds majority in congress. The opposition was only a few percent away from that, resulting in a deadlock. That's the whole point for why the military got involved: the government was frozen - it couldn't really make policy other than through presidential vetoes and then enforcing those by disempowering the supreme court, the situation was deteriorating and at the same time you had the more radical part of Allende's coalition running off at a tangent arming themselves and talking about overthrowing the bourgeoisie as a way out of the crisis.

If Allende were to be removed legally, that would have required a wait to the next congressional election. I don't know what Chile would have looked like then, but the thought presumably didn't inspire confidence both in congress and in the military.

If Allende were to be removed legally, that would have required a wait to the next congressional election. I don't know what Chile would have looked like then, but the thought presumably didn't inspire confidence both in congress and in the military.

I still see no justification in the coup and what ensued afterwards. Salvador Allende was, in the end, the lesser of two evils. I'm sure Chile could've lasted until the next congressional election. Or an emergency congress could've been called to come to a peaceful agreement. Augusto Pinochet and his regime was not, ultimately as time and thousands of deaths laters showed, the solution.

Actually, impeachment was in the constitution, but needed a two-thirds majority in congress. The opposition was only a few percent away from that, resulting in a deadlock.

Do you solve deadlocks in America through coups?

Which once again lets me see how ignorant you are on the subject. Do you know what a military coup entails?
From French coup d’état means a swift strike against the government. Normally conducted by the military.
You should know, you're in the army.
I am a military veteran, I have finished my service and in college now. Not really relevant to the convo but don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. Do you know what military governments bring to a country? Do know how violent these are? What they do to the citizenry?
Several factors influence this. Society's view of the military, how armed the populace is, and how divided society is. Perhaps most importantly if the coup occurs when a civil war is brewing in the near future
Several bloodless coups or near bloodless coups have occurred in places like Thailand, Turkey, and Pakistan. No, you do not. If you did, you wouldn't be so adamant in saying you would prefer a military coup and subsequent government, to a system run democratically.
turkey in particular is a good case. both the 1980 and 1971 coups were bloodless, and were conducted by handing the Turkish leader a memorandum and a general making a television appearance. And both cases their was a complete return to Democracy within 2 years.


But I cannot ask you to understand. Like TAI, you have no firsthand experience of what it's like to grow up in absolutist, military based governments.

Just because you had a bad experience does not mean all such experinces are bad.

Just because you had a bad experience does not mean all such experinces are bad.

Gee. Why don't YOU tell me what good can ever come out to an average citizen from a government in which the Military has ALL the rights and the citizen has NONE.

Gee. Why don't YOU tell me what good can ever come out to an average citizen from a government in which the Military has ALL the rights and the citizen has NONE.

the 1980 coup resulted in a 92% approval rating in support of the military's actions. If it results in stability and a quick return to democracy seems to be a pretty good idea.

the 1980 coup resulted in a 92% approval rating in support of the military's actions. If it results in stability and a quick return to democracy seems to be a pretty good idea.

How about the people jailed and tortured, Greed? How about the fact that you seem to have two or three examples, against more than fifty counter-examples?

I still see no justification in the coup and what ensued afterwards. Salvador Allende was, in the end, the lesser of two evils. I'm sure Chile could've lasted until the next congressional election. Or an emergency congress could've been called to come to a peaceful agreement. Augusto Pinochet and his regime was not, ultimately as time and thousands of deaths laters showed, the solution.
What Pinochet did after he took power is inexcusable. I can say that economically, he did a lot modern Chileans can be thankful for, but that doesn't make up for the methods he used. I haven't made up my mind on whether it is better to have an economy like Zimbabwe's but free elections (though Amartya Sen reckons famine and democracy can't coincide, though I'm not convinced), or a decent economy but no political freedoms.

Nonetheless, I think what can be said is that Chile was in a lot of trouble, and the political system meant that there was no way of fixing it. We can't say this for sure, but it didn't look like peaceful resolution was still being realistically aspired to by anyone but Allende personally, and by that time he seemed to have lost any grasp of the severity of the situation or the radical revolutionary left in his coalition. If it comforts you, I can't do anything to stop you from believing there could have been a peaceful transition. But I think a likelier scenario would have been some sort of civil war. And the military was openly acknowledged within public discourse as the final guarantor of the state, law and order and democracy - as far as that is concerned, it's quite similar to Thailand. The exception was that Chile had no king who would make the generals kneel in shame and give up power, so instead Pinochet started to go nuts on everyone and made no serious attempt to restore democracy until many years later.

So that's where I stand on the issue. I think Allende was an idiot, and his policies destroyed the country. Had they continued, I think a Zimbabwe-style situation would have been inevitable. I also think his politics were closer to the German Democratic Republic than the utopia some of his supporters like to imagine. Had he ever managed to get the popular majority needed to implement his revolutionary plebiscite, I think that's where things would have headed. Grand ideologues and democracy just aren't consistent friends.

I am not unhappy that the military intervened to remove his coalition from power. But what happens afterwards was, as I said, not acceptable in any way, shape or form. The reason I get involved in discussions like these is because I'm sick of this oversimplified story of the popular hero Allende on the way to socialist utopia being crushed by the CIA.

Do you solve deadlocks in America through coups?
Well, there was one time when there was a political deadlock pretty much as bad as this one was in Chile. I suppose there was no coup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War), so you're right.

I still see no justification in the coup and what ensued afterwards. Salvador Allende was, in the end, the lesser of two evils. I'm sure Chile could've lasted until the next congressional election. Or an emergency congress could've been called to come to a peaceful agreement. Augusto Pinochet and his regime was not, ultimately as time and thousands of deaths laters showed, the solution.

Lets not forget that Allende himself planned to held a plebiscite to break this deathlock in a much MUCH more democratic way than a coup.

From French coup d’état means a swift strike against the government. Normally conducted by the military.
I am a military veteran, I have finished my service and in college now. Not really relevant to the convo but don't want anyone to get the wrong idea.
Several factors influence this. Society's view of the military, how armed the populace is, and how divided society is. Perhaps most importantly if the coup occurs when a civil war is brewing in the near future
Several bloodless coups or near bloodless coups have occurred in places like Thailand, Turkey, and Pakistan.
turkey in particular is a good case. both the 1980 and 1971 coups were bloodless, and were conducted by handing the Turkish leader a memorandum and a general making a television appearance. And both cases their was a complete return to Democracy within 2 years.


Just because you had a bad experience does not mean all such experinces are bad.

Maybe, but Chile experience with coups wasn't on the good side. It was one of the worse tyrannies in south america, a region that for many years was known for its ruthless dictators.

the 1980 coup resulted in a 92% approval rating in support of the military's actions. If it results in stability and a quick return to democracy seems to be a pretty good idea.

Once all opposition has been trampled. Executed, dissapeared or exiled. An yes, you don't need to be a genius to guess who provided that 92% approval rating data.:rolleyes:

sip.

Mere speculations. You cannot know, neither I, what would have resulted from the plebiscite. Your arguments are meaningless when confronted with the reality. Pinochet illegal coup that lead to a bloodthirsty tyranny with thousands of murdered, tortured and dissapeared people.

none of which were in the Constitution of Chile. Well blocking legislation but, Allende's response was to prevent the police from upholding any legislation he did not like or upholding any court ruling he did not like.

Chile was already in tyranny under Allende.

http://www.bcn.cl/leyes/pdf/original/131386.pdf

The link is a pdf of the Chilean constitution that was in effect at the time. Read article 39.

Actually, impeachment was in the constitution, but needed a two-thirds majority in congress. The opposition was only a few percent away from that, resulting in a deadlock. That's the whole point for why the military got involved: the government was frozen - it couldn't really make policy other than through presidential vetoes and then enforcing those by disempowering the supreme court, the situation was deteriorating and at the same time you had the more radical part of Allende's coalition running off at a tangent arming themselves and talking about overthrowing the bourgeoisie as a way out of the crisis.

If Allende were to be removed legally, that would have required a wait to the next congressional election. I don't know what Chile would have looked like then, but the thought presumably didn't inspire confidence both in congress and in the military.

There was no deadlock that could not have been resolved through simple democratic means just like those in the developed world. The military need not have been involved. You paint a false dilemma when you state that the only other possible option would have been civil war.

One of the reasons that the US intervened was because the State department at the time was sure that the military would not involve itself in a civil war as they hoped, as this would have done away with Allende's government as well. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch18-02.htm

How about the people jailed and tortured, Greed? How about the fact that you seem to have two or three examples, against more than fifty counter-examples?

because all you need is one example to say a military coup is not a bad thing.
None of which happened in 1980 in turkey. In fact if the coup had been resisted by the people the military of turkey would have lost because they were largely deployed i western turkey dealing with a Kurd problem.

because all you need is one example to say a military coup is not a bad thing.
None of which happened in 1980 in turkey. In fact if the coup had been resisted by the people the military of turkey would have lost because they were largely deployed i western turkey dealing with a Kurd problem.

Not quite. You can now claim that a coup is not always the worst thing, but it is very rarely a good thing.

In the case of Chile or, at the risk of tying this back to the OP, modern Venezuela, a coup d'état by the military does not seem preferable to the continued exercise of democratic and legal options of keeping governments accountable while these options exist.

Not quite. You can now claim that a coup is not always the worst thing, but it is very rarely a good thing.

In the case of Chile or, at the risk of tying this back to the OP, modern Venezuela, a coup d'état by the military does not seem preferable to the continued exercise of democratic and legal options of keeping governments accountable while these options exist.

I agree. Even with my dislike for Chavez I don't think a military coup would be a good option for Venezuela.

Has everyone voted for who Chavez wanted? I want to know if a Scarerocracy works.. you know, for future knowledge when I become president.

Has everyone voted for who Chavez wanted? I want to know if a Scarerocracy works.. you know, for future knowledge when I become president.


Scarocracy works extremely good.

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/389000.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_general_election_2006_controversies

Mere speculations. You cannot know, neither I, what would have resulted from the plebiscite. Your arguments are meaningless when confronted with the reality. Pinochet illegal coup that lead to a bloodthirsty tyranny with thousands of murdered, tortured and dissapeared people.
Again, this is not a valid cop-out. If we're going to compare governments, it is inevitable that we have to speculate on all but one of the options, since they will have been voted out of office. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating what we all agree upon doesn't move this forward.

There was no deadlock that could not have been resolved through simple democratic means just like those in the developed world. The military need not have been involved. You paint a false dilemma when you state that the only other possible option would have been civil war.
Then I have to go back several pages and again ask: what democratic means?

One of the reasons that the US intervened was because the State department at the time was sure that the military would not involve itself in a civil war as they hoped, as this would have done away with Allende's government as well.
And the State department may well have been wrong. Except that I thought it had been established that the US involvement was neither sufficient nor even necessary for the coup. I mean, this wasn't some random group of guerillas in the jungle, this was the country's military.

But don't take my word for it:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch18-02.htm
So this is from the ambassador, basically when Allende was first elected. What does this have to do with a potential resolution to the impasse that didn't come until years later? As far as I can see it, in that he paints a bleak future for Chile under Allende he was actually pretty close to the mark. The rest looks to me like an old man getting kinda emotional.

Again, this is not a valid cop-out. If we're going to compare governments, it is inevitable that we have to speculate on all but one of the options, since they will have been voted out of office. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating what we all agree upon doesn't move this forward.



NO. Pull your fingers out of your ears.

We can compare what Allende did (plan a plebiscite, answer the accusations of his rivals- accusation that couldn't proceed according to the supreme court) with what Pinochet did (the coup, the human right transgressions, etc), instead of trying to compare what Pinochet did with the imaginary ebil Marxist dictatorship that Allende would undoubtedly impose and the inescapable civil war that would follow.

We can compare what Allende did (plan a plebiscite, answer the accusations of his rivals- accusation that couldn't proceed according to the supreme court) with what Pinochet did (the coup, the human right transgressions, etc), instead of trying to compare what Pinochet did with the imaginary ebil Marxist dictatorship that Allende would undoubtedly impose and the inescapable civil war that would follow.
Who are you trying to convince here? I said time and time again (to the point where it feels idiotic to have to repeat it) that Pinochet's human rights violations were unacceptable and that he deserved punishment. That is not the topic of the debate.

When it comes to evaluating Allende's government, its potential future and the way it ended, you can't get around thinking about what Allende's goals were and what his policies had actually achieved up to this point. That is not that hard to understand, and it shouldn't be controversial. And it is the only way to evaluate the coup (as seperate from what followed), which is the only way to address this eternal question about the evilness of the US' with regards to Chile and South America in general.

turkey in particular is a good case. both the 1980 and 1971 coups were bloodless, and were conducted by handing the Turkish leader a memorandum and a general making a television appearance. And both cases their was a complete return to Democracy within 2 years.

3 examples. That's all you give me. 3 examples of the coutless bloody coups we've seen throughout history. Those 3 are exception to the rule, Greed. You know, as well as I do, that coup d'etats, performed by the military, are anything but bloodless. And you seem to forget that bloodless wasn't the case of Chile. Blood, plenty of it, was lost after Pinochet's takeover.

What Pinochet did after he took power is inexcusable. I can say that economically, he did a lot modern Chileans can be thankful for, but that doesn't make up for the methods he used. I haven't made up my mind on whether it is better to have an economy like Zimbabwe's but free elections (though Amartya Sen reckons famine and democracy can't coincide, though I'm not convinced), or a decent economy but no political freedoms.

Nonetheless, I think what can be said is that Chile was in a lot of trouble, and the political system meant that there was no way of fixing it. We can't say this for sure, but it didn't look like peaceful resolution was still being realistically aspired to by anyone but Allende personally, and by that time he seemed to have lost any grasp of the severity of the situation or the radical revolutionary left in his coalition. If it comforts you, I can't do anything to stop you from believing there could have been a peaceful transition. But I think a likelier scenario would have been some sort of civil war. And the military was openly acknowledged within public discourse as the final guarantor of the state, law and order and democracy - as far as that is concerned, it's quite similar to Thailand. The exception was that Chile had no king who would make the generals kneel in shame and give up power, so instead Pinochet started to go nuts on everyone and made no serious attempt to restore democracy until many years later.

So that's where I stand on the issue. I think Allende was an idiot, and his policies destroyed the country. Had they continued, I think a Zimbabwe-style situation would have been inevitable. I also think his politics were closer to the German Democratic Republic than the utopia some of his supporters like to imagine. Had he ever managed to get the popular majority needed to implement his revolutionary plebiscite, I think that's where things would have headed. Grand ideologues and democracy just aren't consistent friends.

I am not unhappy that the military intervened to remove his coalition from power. But what happens afterwards was, as I said, not acceptable in any way, shape or form. The reason I get involved in discussions like these is because I'm sick of this oversimplified story of the popular hero Allende on the way to socialist utopia being crushed by the CIA.

NL, I will tell you the same thing I told TAI. I understand your points, perfectly. I agree in one aspect with the both of you, and that is that we 3disagree. That, does not take from your argument.

Salvador Allende wasn't a hero. And Pinochet wasn't one either. Allende was, ultimately, the lesser of 2 evils. I won't exalt either. Both leaders screwed up, big time. But Augusto Pinochet was worse, in the long run, for the country he claimed he was saving from Allende.

He abused Chileans for many years. He abused them so much that, in fact, the UN accused him, in front of a world jury, of crimes against humanity. I'm sure you know he died awaiting trial.

It would pain me, big time, because I have friends from Venezuela, if Chávez turned out to be a Pinochet or Franco emulator, in everything. That South American country deserves the best, not a bloody coup. I do hope Hugo learned from the mistakes of other dictators. I hope that, as another election seems to be brewing on that country, that he reforms (unlikely) or steps down.

Gee. Why don't YOU tell me what good can ever come out to an average citizen from a government in which the Military has ALL the rights and the citizen has NONE.

Es que no te puede decir nada, chaval. Greed no sabe, no entiende ni entenderá, jamás, lo que es vivir bajo una dictadura. Es muy fácil, y tú lo sabes bien (ya lo has visto con él y con todo aquel que defiende la movida de Pinochet), hablar desde la comodidad de vivir en un país dónde no se te persigue porque no estés de acuerdo con lo que dice tu presidente. Es muy fácil pensar que porque el caso de Turquía fue 'pacífico', que los golpes de estado son una buena alternativa para un país. Es muy fácil, facilísimo, opinar desde la ignorancia.

Claro, cómo él no tiene que preocuparse de que mañana su milicia se acojone ys decida derrocar el gobierno de Bush. Cómo él se puede levantar tranquilamente todos los días sin pensar que el ejército tiene toque de queda, que él tiene todos sus derechos, que éstos son inviolables, y que no le van a llamar para que identifique los cadáveres de sus seres queridos, acribillados a balazos por defender sus ideales.

No jodáis, que por comentarios cómo el de Greed es que me doy cuenta que aquellos que siempre han tenido democracia en sus vidas, no saben un coño de lo que es tener de cabeza del gobierno a un Pinochet o a un Hitler. Y cómo no lo saben, que mantengan las bocas cerradas.

Cómo me jode!

Snip.

De acuerdo...

Who are you trying to convince here? I said time and time again (to the point where it feels idiotic to have to repeat it) that Pinochet's human rights violations were unacceptable and that he deserved punishment. That is not the topic of the debate.

When it comes to evaluating Allende's government, its potential future and the way it ended, you can't get around thinking about what Allende's goals were and what his policies had actually achieved up to this point. That is not that hard to understand, and it shouldn't be controversial. And it is the only way to evaluate the coup (as seperate from what followed), which is the only way to address this eternal question about the evilness of the US' with regards to Chile and South America in general.

You want to evaluate the coup separated of its consequences? :confused:
I think if you want to evaluate an action you need to consider its effects. The effects of the coup are very clear.

You would prefer to evaluate the coup based on the cherry picked quite biased hypothetical scenarios? :confused: Is that what you propose? :confused:

I don't follow that kind of logic. :confused:

Any way after operation Condor the utter ebilness of the USA is beyond doubt. :tongue:

You want to evaluate the coup separated of its consequences? :confused:

Something that's impossible to do. One cannot evaluate a coup without taking into considerationn it's consequences. They go in tandem, even if we don't want them to.

Then I have to go back several pages and again ask: what democratic means?

The ones described in the Chilean constitution of the time. I already posted a link and mentioned the appropriate article.

And the State department may well have been wrong. Except that I thought it had been established that the US involvement was neither sufficient nor even necessary for the coup. I mean, this wasn't some random group of guerillas in the jungle, this was the country's military.

The State department may have been wrong, but you have yet to show any evidence thereof.

So this is from the ambassador, basically when Allende was first elected. What does this have to do with a potential resolution to the impasse that didn't come until years later? As far as I can see it, in that he paints a bleak future for Chile under Allende he was actually pretty close to the mark. The rest looks to me like an old man getting kinda emotional.

I was providing it as proof that the US government at the time did not believe that the armed forces would intervene or cause a civil war, and that a civil war or any other thing that removed Allende from power was the desired effect. Specifically, I was discussing the sentence that reads:

There is no reason to believe the Chilean Armed Forces will unleash a civil war or that any other intervening miracle will undo his victory.

So, on the one hand we have your ad-hoc rationalisation that Pinochet was acting to forestall an inevitable civil war, and on the other hand, we have the testimony of interested and knowledgeable parties at the time who explicitly state that such a civil war was not going to happen without outside intervention.

And no, we haven't simply agreed to your assertion that US involvement in the coup was neither sufficient nor necessary. You may believe that, but only by ignoring the incredible amount of time and resources spent by the US from 1964 onwards on limiting Allende's power. Kinda like the blog you posted.

Who are you trying to convince here? I said time and time again (to the point where it feels idiotic to have to repeat it) that Pinochet's human rights violations were unacceptable and that he deserved punishment. That is not the topic of the debate.

When it comes to evaluating Allende's government, its potential future and the way it ended, you can't get around thinking about what Allende's goals were and what his policies had actually achieved up to this point. That is not that hard to understand, and it shouldn't be controversial. And it is the only way to evaluate the coup (as seperate from what followed), which is the only way to address this eternal question about the evilness of the US' with regards to Chile and South America in general.

Contrary point here-you have to account for U.S. involvement BEFORE Allende if you want to discuss the "Evilness" of U.S. involvement south of the Rio Grande.

I suggest you read some Smedley Butler.

Not quite. You can now claim that a coup is not always the worst thing, but it is very rarely a good thing.

In the case of Chile or, at the risk of tying this back to the OP, modern Venezuela, a coup d'état by the military does not seem preferable to the continued exercise of democratic and legal options of keeping governments accountable while these options exist.

Check own Chávez's experience. Back in 1992, he orchestrated a coup against a largely corrupted and inept goverment. The coup failed, didn't remove the president, caused a rise in the economic crisis, killed a lot of civilians and soldiers, forced instability upon the country...

Not too much later, the president he tried to overthrow, Carlos Andrés Pérez, was impeached and removed from power by a legal lawsuit. So much for good coups...

I agree. Even with my dislike for Chavez I don't think a military coup would be a good option for Venezuela.

Indeed, nothing could be worse than that. I'm all in agreement of waiting until 2013, and then let him abandon power peacefully after his term is over. That's the way democratic goverments should work.

Has everyone voted for who Chavez wanted? I want to know if a Scarerocracy works.. you know, for future knowledge when I become president.

Depends, osmetimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It involves you actually making those threats effective if things doesn't go your way. So far, Chávez hasn't.

How the hell do unions and civil liberties interfere with capitalism? Free market capitalism. You cannot have pure free market capitalism when labour unions have the power to lock in wages....civil liberties...like the ability to protest rampant free market capitalism and shock therapy, might interfere with a government's desire to ram those policies through. THAT is how they interfered with hard core free market capitalism, Chicago Boys' style.



Such as?

Impeachment. Dissolving Congress and holding new elections.

The policies that Pinochet implemented were a blend of authoritarianism and liberalism. Not pure-bred neoliberalism.

The best examples of pure neoliberalism is Poland or the Baltic States; in both regions the "shock therapy" method worked, and it worked massively well. This is almost certainly due to the implementation of liberal social and political policies alongside economic liberalization; without the former two, you simply don't have the transparency or competitive markets necessary for success.

That's why shock therapy produced generally worse economic conditions in Chile, but once the Pinochet regime was removed and the country democratized it began to prosper and now rapidly outstrips its fellow countries in South America in terms of GDP and quality of life.

That being said, it still has very high income inequality but even that is significantly lower than its neighbors; with a strong economic base, they can now work to reduce that inequality without compromising growth.

So you're saying that it's ok to have friendly relations with dictators and psychos if they give you oil?


The oil in question is not a gift, payments must be made before you will receive your precious barrels of black gold. And as far as I know, it has always been super-duper ok to have friendly relations with rather undemocratic regimes. Take Ronald Reagan and Saddam Hussein, for example. I won't say they were BFF, but the Reagan administrations weren't exactly hostile towards Irak in the eighties, hm?

And don't even try to dig up the decaying corpse of ethics.

You want to evaluate the coup separated of its consequences? :confused:
I think if you want to evaluate an action you need to consider its effects. The effects of the coup are very clear.
But they weren't necessary consequences. Military coups in other countries have not been followed by a prolonged and brutal dictatorship. In some countries they are an event that serves to break up deadlocks like the one in Chile created by the inability of politicians in these parties to compromise.

So yes, the question I am asking isn't "was Pinochet bad?" It is "was Pinochet justified or right in removing Allende?"

What followed after he had removed the government was wrong, and I said repeatedly that I don't see the point in arguing about it.

The ones described in the Chilean constitution of the time. I already posted a link and mentioned the appropriate article.
I don't speak Spanish though.

The State department may have been wrong, but you have yet to show any evidence thereof.
Because it's kinda hard to conclusively prove that a hypothetical would have occured. I can't do much more than point to the arming of the Soviets and the fighting talk of the radical parts of Allende's coalition when it became clear that Allende's hope of democratically installing a socialist system weren't going well.

So, on the one hand we have your ad-hoc rationalisation that Pinochet was acting to forestall an inevitable civil war, and on the other hand, we have the testimony of interested and knowledgeable parties at the time who explicitly state that such a civil war was not going to happen without outside intervention.
From several years before the coup! Don't you think a lot of stuff could have and actually did happen in between those events?

And no, we haven't simply agreed to your assertion that US involvement in the coup was neither sufficient nor necessary. You may believe that, but only by ignoring the incredible amount of time and resources spent by the US from 1964 onwards on limiting Allende's power. Kinda like the blog you posted.
The US could have done all sorts of things, but it could not produce the deadlock which left Allende's plans for a plebiscite stranded and him unable to pursue his policies. Whatever nuisances the CIA may have thrown in his way, the things that actually brought down his government and project were ultimately home-grown.

Free market capitalism. You cannot have pure free market capitalism when labour unions have the power to lock in wages...
That depends on how you define "lock in". Collective bargaining as such doesn't interfere with free market capitalism per se - though it is equivalent to the forming of price cartels by businesses, meaning that it will inevitably lead to some form of dead weight loss. Nonetheless, as far as capitalism respects the right to free association, as it has to in order to function (information transmission and all that), unions and the free market fit together just fine.

It only starts to get iffy when unions start having political influence beyond the business and the negotiations with this specific employer. Hence my own stance: unions are fine, but should be contained to one business. There is no need for any union to cover more than one employer, and there certainly is no need for unions with ties to political parties.

...civil liberties...like the ability to protest rampant free market capitalism and shock therapy, might interfere with a government's desire to ram those policies through.
So does that mean any country that doesn't crack down on such protests can't be a free market economy? Not really, it is not a necessary condition at all. Free market capitalism can exist with a full respect for civil liberties, and since those are a good even considered separately from any economic concerns, nobody should condone a violation of these liberties, capitalist or not.

But if we were to assume that such protests would actually endanger the system, then the response is a question of degrees, isn't it? Neither of us would see the problem in letting the protests occur without government response. But what if they turn violent? What if it's not protests, but a violent revolution? What if it's another country invading to overthrow our system? I don't think it's always wrong for the government to use force to defend the system.

But that's leaving civil liberties and Pinochet behind. The latter cracked down on the opposition primarily out of concern for his personal position, if you ask me.

Impeachment. Dissolving Congress and holding new elections.
Impeachment was talked about already, there was a deadlock in congress that made it impossible.

As I said, I don't speak Spanish, so would you be able to tell me what the rules were for dissolving Congress?

I don't speak Spanish though.

No big deal, as long as you recognise that democratic options still existed for removing Allende. The coup was not the only solution.

Because it's kinda hard to conclusively prove that a hypothetical would have occured. I can't do much more than point to the arming of the Soviets and the fighting talk of the radical parts of Allende's coalition when it became clear that Allende's hope of democratically installing a socialist system weren't going well.

Right. No evidence exists for this supposed imminent civil war, but evidence does exist that suggests this civil war would not have happened. So why do you cling to the idea that has less evidence?

From several years before the coup! Don't you think a lot of stuff could have and actually did happen in between those events?

Yes. And a lot of it was due to the US intervention based on their idea that since a civil war was not going to happen without outside influence, such outside influence was needed.

The US could have done all sorts of things, but it could not produce the deadlock which left Allende's plans for a plebiscite stranded and him unable to pursue his policies. Whatever nuisances the CIA may have thrown in his way, the things that actually brought down his government and project were ultimately home-grown.

You keep repeating that. Do you have any evidence for such a claim? I ask this because I have already shown you evidence that US involvement in Allende's Chile was not inconsequential, yet you seem to continue in your belief. I must assume this is because you have additional evidence that I am as yet unaware of.

However bad Allende was, we (and by "we" I mean the U.S.) should have done nothing other than maintain diplomatic relations, trade with Chile, and otherwise shut up and leave them alone.

However bad Allende was, we (and by "we" I mean the U.S.) should have done nothing other than maintain diplomatic relations, trade with Chile, and otherwise shut up and leave them alone.

Amen to that.