11 September, 1973 - The Day Democracy Died in Chile

Håkan Eriksson

Commander of the Swedes.
Joined
Nov 25, 2000
Messages
1,767
Location
Göteborg, Sweden
This is a thread about the coup that took place in Chile now exactly 30 years ago. I have many friends from chile whos one or two parents or relatives were killed during the coup.

Today when I think of the date 9/11 I think of two terible things that happend. The coup in chile 30 years ago and the terrorist attac 2 years ago.

They are both terrible events. And this thread is not meant to put one above the other. But I do think both events deserve remembrance.

Please share your thoughts about 9/11 2001 in the Remembrance -thread.

And please share your thoughts about the 9/11 1973. In this thread.





Article from BBC:

Salvador Allende holds a unique place in history as he was the world's first democratically-elected Marxist leader of any nation. Sadly, President Allende of Chile's election sent a shiver down the spine of the West who were in the middle of a Cold War, whose egos were reeling from the failure to topple communism in Vietnam and who still felt the threat posed by the Cuban Missile Crisis1. Allende was elected to power with 36.2% of the vote in 1970 - his term was to be cut short less than three years later by General Augusto Pinochet. Both Allende and Pinochet were dogmatic men, each believing his cause was the right one and neither left room for compromise - when two men of this disposition clash, tragedy is the only outcome. This entry chronicles the events of the day that democracy died in Chile.

From mid-August 1973 there had been rumblings of a coup brewing in Chile - the economy was suffering due to the withdrawal of foreign investment in the democratically-elected state. At 4am on 11 September, a date that is now synonymous with strikes against democracy, military units stationed throughout Chile reported for action to the leaders of the coup, led by Augusto Pinochet2. By 7am, these troops were being deployed, their aim to wrest the urban centres of Chile from local politicians. The most effective operation was carried out in Concepción, the country's third largest city - the military had cut all the phone lines of governmental personnel and had rounded everyone up and placed them on an island to keep them from communicating what had happened to the rest of the world. Once these key players had been removed, the city slipped into military hands. The whole operation took less than 85 minutes to execute.

Valparaíso, Chile's major port, was taken in stages. The navy had seized the port by 7am but they were unsure at this time whether or not the Chilean army was on their side or not. However, it became clear that all the armed forces were in cahoots and the city and port fell in a matter of hours. While two of the country's largest cities fell, the nation slept, blissfully unaware of the turmoil about to erupt.

The Day Unfolds

At 6.20am, President Allende was alerted to the fact that the navy were trying to capture the port of Valparaíso and on hearing the news, he immediately removed himself to La Moneda, the presidential palace in the heart of the nation's capital, Santiago - surely the next target on the military's list. Allende was given the opportunity to leave the country by plane in an offer made by a military aide-de-camp General von Schowen. Allende declined the offer saying:

Tell General von Schowen that the President of Chile does not flee in a plane. As he knows how a soldier should act, I will know how to fulfill my duty as President of the Republic.
By 8.30am, Radio Agricultura, an anti-Allende broadcast station, relayed the news of the coup to the nation and demanded Allende's resignation. Allende, never one to shirk confrontation, retorted in a broadcast:

I am ready to resist by whatever means, even at the cost of my life, so that this may serve as a lesson to the ignominious history of those who use force not reason.
By the time the broadcast had ended, the police, army and navy had mobilised against the Allende government. One by one, those great voices of democracy, independent radio stations, were switched and were replaced by military justifications for the coup. After his announcement, Allende, for some unknown reason, made a brief appearance on the balcony. What he would have seen was the city's population hurrying home to their families, and preparing themselves for a long siege3.

At 9.30am, Allende made his last address to the nation and the ensuing hours were filled with reports of other towns and cities falling and it was during these hours that first news came in that people were being herded into stadiums and onto islands. During these hours, the staff at La Moneda started to leave the palace to be with their families or to join in the fight against Allende. By mid-morning, the palace was surrounded by tanks and the Chilean President was under siege.

It was at this point that the military started negotiations with the President from the base across the street in the Ministry of Defence, opposite La Moneda. For next few hours, desperate calls and random sniper fire flew between the two buildings. At 11.55am, two Hawker Hunter jets launched 18 rockets at the palace and each one struck home with impressive accuracy (this in the days before smart bombs). Why send in the planes when the tanks would have sufficed? The planes were a clear indication to Allende and the Chilean population that the armed forces were 100% behind the coup - the navy had captured the ports, the army the towns and now the air force was taking La Moneda. The air strikes would have also actively discouraged resistance from the factories whose workers were the staunchest supporters of Allende and his Marxist beliefs. By the time the last rocket had hit, democracy in Chile was teetering on the brink of oblivion.

The Storming of La Moneda

At 1.30pm, a group of people were seen waving the white flag of surrender at a side door of La Moneda. Among them was Patricio Guijón who was to give the most controversial and hotly debated accounts of the last moments of President Allende. He said that as he was leaving the palace:

I saw the President, seated on a sofa, fire a submachine gun that he held between his legs. I saw it, but I did not hear it. I saw his body shudder and the roof of his skull fly off.
The suicide was announced via a photo taken by a press photographer, invited in by the military. Allende's body was subjected to a rudimentary and private autopsy and his cadaver was flown to Viña del Mar and placed in the family tomb. The headstone was desecrated by removing all mention of the Allende family name. Thus the man who had risen to international prominence as the world's first democratically elected Marxist leader was laid to rest in an anonymous grave.

There has been much conjecture as to whether or not Allende was murdered or took his own life. the photos were never published and stories abound of chest and abdomen wounds that would indicate murder - and then there is Guijón's dubious testimony (how could he be close enough to see the skull blow off but not hear the shot?). However President Allende died, one thing remains - by mid-afternoon on 11 September, 1973, Chile had lost its President, Democracy had been dealt a blow that it would take 25 years to recover from and the world was about to witness one of the worst cases of political cleansing.

Nobody knows how many people died during the coup, but it goes without saying that many more died in the ensuing weeks and the military dictatorship that followed. Chilean liberals of all walks of life were rounded up and were either executed or 'disappeared'. One such example is Victor Jara, the celebrated folk singer, who was executed in the very stadium where he had played to great critical acclaim.
 
The American National Public Radio program Fresh Air did two interviews on the coup on their Tuesday show. They talked with Peter Kornbluh, a historian who has published a book, The Pinochet File, analyzing declassified U.S. documents on the events surrounding the coup, and with Jack Devine, a CIA agent stationed in Chile during the coup. As you can imagine both men had very different perspectives on the events of thirty yeras ago, and the interviews made for interesting listening.

Click here to listen to the Fresh Air interviews.
 
A well written article on the coup from the Federation of American Scientists website.

Allende's Leftist Regime

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people."
Henry Kissinger


By the end of the 1960s, the polarization of Chilean politics had overwhelmed the traditional civility of Chile's vaunted democratic institutions. The centrist agreements of the past, which had enabled presidents to navigate a difficult course of compromise and conciliation, became more difficult to attain. The American Central Intelligence Agency had influenced elections in Chile dating back to 1958, but in 1970 the socialist candidate, a physician named Salvador Allende, was elected president. In a reflection of Chile's increased ideological polarization, Allende was elected president with 36.2 percent of the vote in 1970. Unable or unwilling to form coalitions, the left, center, and right had all nominated their own candidates in the mistaken hope of obtaining a majority.

President Nixon directed CIA to prevent Allende's inauguration through a military coup. One of the opponents of a coup, Army Chief of Staff General Rene Schneider was assassinated, but Allende took office as scheduled.
The Allende experiment enjoyed a triumphant first year, followed by two disastrous final years. According to the Popular Unity [ Unidad Popular - UP] coalition , Chile was being exploited by parasitic foreign and domestic capitalists. The government therefore moved quickly to socialize the economy, taking over the copper mines, other foreign firms, oligopolistic industries, banks, and large estates. By a unanimous vote of Congress in 1971, the government totally nationalized the foreign copper firms, which were mainly owned by two United States companies, Kennecott and Anaconda. The nationalization measure was one of the few bills Allende ever got through the opposition- controlled legislature, where the Christian Democrats constituted the largest single party.

Socialization of the means of production spread rapidly and widely. The government took over virtually all the great estates. It turned the lands over to the resident workers, who benefited far more than the owners of tiny plots or the numerous migrant laborers. By 1972 food production had fallen and food imports had risen. Also during 1971-72, the government dusted off emergency legislation from the 1932 Socialist Republic to allow it to expropriate industries without congressional approval. It turned many factories over to management by the workers and the state.

In his first year, Allende also employed Keynesian measures to hike salaries and wages, thus pumping up the purchasing power of the middle and working classes. This "consumer revolution" benefited 95 percent of the population in the short run because prices were held down and employment went up. Producers responded to rising demand by employing previously underused capacity.

Politically, Allende faced problems holding his Popular Unity coalition together, pacifying the more leftist elements inside and outside Popular Unity and, above all, coping with the increasingly implacable opposition. Within Popular Unity, the largest party was the Socialist Party. Although composed of multiple factions, the Socialist Party mainly pressed Allende to accelerate the transition toward socialism. The second most important element was the PCCh, which favored a more gradual, legalistic approach. Outside the Popular Unity, the most significant left-wing organization was the MIR, a tiny but provocative group that admired the Cuban Revolution and encouraged peasants and workers to take property and the revolutionary process into their own hands, much faster than Allende preferred.

The most important opposition party was the PDC. As it and the middle sectors gradually shifted to the right, they came to form an anti-Allende bloc in combination with the Natinal Party and the propertied class. Even farther to the right were minuscule, paramilitary, quasi-fascist groups like Fatherland and Liberty (Patria y Libertad), determined to sabotage Popular Unity.

The Popular Unity government tried to maintain cordial relations with the United States, even while staking out an independent position as a champion of developing nations and socialist causes. It opened diplomatic relations with Cuba, China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), and Albania. It befriended the Soviet Union, which sent aid to the Allende administration, although far less than Cuba received or than Popular Unity had hoped for.

Meanwhile, the United States pursued a two-track policy toward Allende's Chile. At the overt level, Washington was frosty, especially after the nationalization of the copper mines; official relations were unfriendly but not openly hostile. The government of President Richard M. Nixon launched an economic blockade conjunction with U.S. multinationals (ITT, Kennecott, Anaconda) and banks (Inter-American Development Bank, World Bank). The US squeezed the Chilean economy by terminating financial assistance and blocking loans from multilateral organizations. But during 1972 and 1973 the US increased aid to the military, a sector unenthusiastic toward the Allende government. The United States also increased training Chilean military personnel in the United States and Panama.

According to notes taken by CIA director Richard Helms at a 1970 meeting in the Oval Office, his orders were to "make the economy scream." It was widely reported that at the covert level the United States worked to destabilize Allende's Chile by funding opposition political groups and media and by encouraging a military coup d'état. The agency trained members of the fascist organization Patria y Libertad (PyL) in guerrilla warfare and bombing, and they were soon waging a campaign of arson. CIA also sponsored demonstrations and strikes, funded by ITT and other US corporations with Chilean holdings. CIA-linked media, including the country's largest newspaper, fanned the flames of crisis. While these United States actions contributed to the downfall of Allende, no one has established direct United States participation in the coup d'état and few would assign the United States the primary role in the destruction of that government.

During the second and third years of the UP, demand outstripped supply, the economy shrank, deficit spending snowballed, new investments and foreign exchange became scarce, the value of copper sales dropped, shortages appeared, and inflation skyrocketed, eroding the previous gains for the working class. A thriving black market sprang up. The government responded with direct distribution systems in working-class neighborhoods. Worker participation in the management of enterprises reached unprecedented proportions. The strapped government could not keep the economy from going into free fall because it could not impose austerity measures on its supporters in the working class, get new taxes approved by Congress, or borrow enough money abroad to cover the deficit.

Although the right was on the defensive in Allende's first year, it moved on the offensive and forged an alliance with the center in the next two years. In Congress this center-right coalition erected a blockade against all Popular Unity initiatives, harassed Popular Unity cabinet ministers, and denounced the administration as illegitimate and unconstitutional, thus setting the stage for a military takeover. The most acrimonious battle raged over the boundaries of Popular Unity's "social property area" (área de propriedad social), which would incorporate private holdings through government intervention, requisition, or expropriation. The Supreme Court and the comptroller general of the republic joined Congress in criticizing the executive branch for overstepping its constitutional bounds.

Allende tried to stabilize the situation by organizing a succession of cabinets, but none of them guaranteed order. His appointment of military officers to cabinet posts in 1972 and 1973 also failed to stifle the opposition. Instead, it helped politicize the armed services. Outside the government, Allende's supporters continued direct takeovers of land and businesses, further disrupting the economy and frightening the propertied class.

The two sides reached a showdown in the March 1973 congressional elections. The opposition expected the Allende coalition to suffer the typical losses of Chilean governments in midterm elections, especially with the economy in a tailspin. The National Party and PDC hoped to win two-thirds of the seats, enough to impeach Allende. They netted 55 percent of the votes, not enough of a majority to end the stalemate. Moreover, the Popular Unity's 43 percent share represented an increase over the presidential tally of 36.2 percent and gave Allende's coalition six additional congressional seats; therefore, many of his adherents were encouraged to forge ahead.

In the aftermath of the indecisive 1973 congressional elections, both sides escalated the confrontation and hurled threats of insurgency. Street demonstrations became almost daily events and increasingly violent. Right-wing groups, such as Fatherland and Liberty, and left-wing groups, such as the MIR, brandished arms and called for a cataclysmic solution. The most militant workers formed committees in their neighborhoods and workplaces to press for accelerated social change and to defend their gains. The opposition began openly knocking on the doors of the barracks in hopes that the military would provide a solution.

The regular armed forces halted an attempted coup by tank commanders in June 1973, but that incident warned the nation that the military was getting restless. Thereafter, the armed forces prepared for a massive coup by stepping up raids to search for arms among Popular Unity's supporters. Conditions worsened in June, July, and August, as middle- and upper-class business proprietors and professionals launched another wave of workplace shutdowns and lockouts, as they had in late 1972. Their 1973 protests against the government coincided with strikes by the trucking industry and by the left's erstwhile allies among the copper workers. The Nationalists, the Christian Democrats, and conservative students backed the increasingly subversive strikers. They called for Allende's resignation or military intervention. Attempts by the Catholic Church to get the PDC and Popular Unity to negotiate a compromise came to naught. Meanwhile, inflation reached an annual rate of more than 500 percent. By mid-1973 the economy and the government were paralyzed.

In August 1973, the rightist and centrist representatives in the Chamber of Deputies undermined the president's legitimacy by accusing him of systematically violating the constitution and by urging the armed forces to intervene. In early September, Allende was preparing to call for a rare national plebiscite to resolve the impasse between Popular Unity and the opposition. The military obviated that strategy by launching its attack on civilian authority on the morning of September 11. Just prior to the assault, the commanders in chief, headed by the newly appointed army commander, General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, had purged officers sympathetic to the president or the constitution.

Allende either was assassinated or committed suicide while defending (with an assault rifle) his socialist government against the coup d'état. Several cabinet ministers were also assassinated, the universities were put under military control, opposition parties were banned and thousands of Chileans were tortured and killed, many fingered as "radicals" by lists provided by the CIA. Although sporadic resistance to the coup erupted, the military consolidated control much more quickly than it had believed possible. Many Chileans had predicted that a coup would unleash a civil war, but instead it ushered in a long period of repression.

Debate continues over the reasons for Allende's downfall. Right-wing critics in particular accused the left of plotting an armed takeover, a charge that was never proved. Critics also assailed the UP for being unclear about the limits of its reforms and thus frightening the middle class into the arms of the opposition. Critics of the right accused Popular Unity, in conjunction with the United States, of ruining the economy and of calling out the armed forces to protect its property and privileges. Critics of the Christian Democrats chastised them for refusing to compromise, locking arms with the rightist opposition, and failing to defend democracy. Observers in general scolded the far left for its adventurous excesses. Critics of the left blamed Allende for going to extremes, destroying the economy, violating the constitution, and undermining the spirit if not the letter of democracy. The far left retorted that Popular Unity failed because it was too timid to arm the masses.

There was ample blame to go around. Groups at all points on the political spectrum helped destroy the democratic order by being too ideological and too intransigent. A minority president facing adamant domestic and foreign opposition was extremely unlikely to be able to uphold democracy and create socialism at the same time.

The major media in the United States ignored the issue of CIA involvement until 1974, when Michael J. Harrington (D-MA) leaked details of secret Congressional testimony by William Colby. And in late 1975, the Senate Committee headed by Frank Church released the report on "Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973." In 1982 the movie "Missing," directed by Costa-Gavras and starring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek, provided a dramatized account of Charles Horman, a 30-year-old American free-lance journalist secretly arrested and executed during the coup.

Sources and Resources
Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973, a Staff report of The Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (US Senate), 18 December 1975.

William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions since World War II, (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, s1995).

Thomas Hauser, Missing. New York: Avon Books, 1982 [first published in 1978 as The Execution of Charles Horman: An American Sacrifice] 255 pages.
 
However elected, Allende was doing the typical budding dictator bit of unlawfully arrogating power to himself, setting violent mobs upon his opponents, suppressing the courts and legislature, etc. Just one slow motion dictator by intenral coup being blown away by a faster and more brutal dictater with a military coup. Allende and Pinochet dersered each other, Chile deserved neither.
 
Come off it! you are comparing Allende to the Military Junta under Pinochet, Allende at least had the backing of the people.
reforming the unjustified courts and legislature not suppressing, you right wingers always twist things around.

His opponents where gangsters & mean corrupt men they got what they deserved.
 
Originally posted by Davidvanday
His opponents where gangsters & mean corrupt men they got what they deserved.
That is every bodys view of their opponents. I had the veiw from the outside, and contemperaneously, unfiltered by revison. For Allendes entire adminstration, there was a continous stream of news of his attack on opponets and democratic prcess and law. Pinochet was worse scum, but Allende was scum. Niether gave a damn about cemocracy expect a a tool to used when it benefited them, and to be crushed when it got in their way.
 
chile_bandera.gif




Viva Chile!
Viva Allende!
 
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That is every bodys view of their opponents. I had the veiw from the outside, and contemperaneously, unfiltered by revison. For Allendes entire adminstration, there was a continous stream of news of his attack on opponets and democratic prcess and law. Pinochet was worse scum, but Allende was scum. Niether gave a damn about cemocracy expect a a tool to used when it benefited them, and to be crushed when it got in their way.


That's a very harsh statement to make lefty, calling Allende scum, and might i add an ignorant statement to make.
Allende is not a leader one would call scum, right wing or not.
What terrible attrocites did he ever commit?

Scum is a harsh degrading word to use, and Allende is not at all a canidate to class as scum. No great leaders are, brutal or not.

He was a fair & just man by far, at least the majority of people in Chile was behind him.

That says a lot, since when has South America ever had a proper democracy back in those years anyway? At least Allendes goverment worked smoothly, compared with other brutal corrupt regimes in South America.
 
Originally posted by Davidvanday
He was a fair & just man by far, at least the majority of people in Chile was behind him.

Not true. Allende only recieved a minority of the votes in the 1970 election (35%ish - but he outmatched all the other candidates in terms of percentage), and his economic policies frustrated many people, specifically, the middle classes, and so his support fell after his inaguration.

Still, Chile was by no means pre-destined to eiter become a dictatorial, and by extension a Soviet state under Allende.

Personally, I find it incredulous and rather silly, tbh to put Allende (for all his faults, and he had plenty of those.) and Pinochet practically on par with each other, but there you go.
 
A good article on that subject is The Economist's "Blackwashing Allende".
As they explains themselves in the article, as a free-market, pro-US english newspaper they had no reason to like Allende and heavily criticized his marxist economic policies. Yet they are forced to conclude that there is no proof at all of any anti-democratic moves by Allende or of torture and political execution on any significant scale.
 
We are talking South America her friend, the middleclasses where not a majority in Chile, of course the uper & middle classes with privat enterprises, would be upset with Allende's policy.

But Allende was a benefit for Chile in whole, compared to previous & future regimes
 
Originally posted by Davidvanday
the middleclasses where not a majority in Chile,

Didn't say they were.

Originally posted by Davidvanday
of course the uper & middle classes with privat enterprises, would be upset with Allende's policy.

Naturally. But there would have been some professionals, (Allende himself was a doctor by profession.) and even workers that voted for him who became disenchanted.

Originally posted by Davidvanday
But Allende was a benefit for Chile in whole, compared to previous & future regimes

I doubt I'd go that far, but between Allende and Pinochet, there is no contest in my mind.
 
Allende only recieved a minority of the votes in the 1970 election (35%ish - but he outmatched all the other candidates in terms of percentage),

That's a higher majority of the voting populationt than either Bush or Clinton have won [to put it in perspective, all the presidential elections since 1988 have been won with between 25-33% of the registered voting population selecting that candidate].
 
Here is another article, this one an editorial in today's New York Times:

The Other Sept. 11

Death came from the skies. A building — a symbol of the nation — collapsed in flames in an act of terror that would lead to the deaths of 3,000 people. It was Sept. 11.

But the year was 1973, the building Chile's White House, La Moneda, and the event a coup staged by Gen. Augusto Pinochet. Now, after decades of silence, Chileans are protesting in the streets for the reversal of amnesty laws that block prosecutions for the killings after the coup. The face of Salvador Allende, the overthrown Socialist president, is everywhere, and now behind La Moneda is a new statue of him wrapped in the Chilean flag. Chile's president, Ricardo Lagos, is proposing a truth commission to look into reports of torture, special judges to find the disappeared, new pensions for victims' families and an amnesty program for former soldiers who tell where the bodies are buried.

Chile is not the only country in South America focused today on the crimes of decades ago. In Peru, the truth commission investigating the guerrilla wars of the 1980's and 1990's just released a report concluding that more than 69,000 people were killed or made to disappear. In Argentina, a new president has just annulled two amnesty laws that the military forced through Congress after the "dirty war" ended in 1983.

In the United States, Sept. 11 will forever be a day to remember our victims of terrorism. Yet our nation's hands have not always been clean, and it is important to recall Chile's Sept. 11, too. "The Pinochet File," a new book by Peter Kornbluh, a researcher at the nonprofit National Security Archive, presents declassified documents showing that the Nixon administration, which had tried to block Mr. Allende's inauguration, began plotting to bring him down just 72 hours after he took office.

Mr. Allende, a Socialist but a democrat, had done nothing to Washington. President Nixon took his election as an affront — "it's too much the fashion to kick us around," he said — and he worried most that a successful Socialist would inspire others.

The United States did not directly participate in the coup, but it laid the groundwork for it and supported the plotters. Afterward, even as mass murder ensued, the Nixon administration secretly embraced Mr. Pinochet's regime.

Much has changed in 30 years in Chile. Today, a woman, Michelle Bachelet, is the respected defense minister, and she and the army's commander, Gen. Juan Emilio Cheyre, are modernizing and depoliticizing the military. General Cheyre has denounced past abuses and vowed they will never be repeated. The courts are trying more than 160 former military men, but retired officers feel betrayed. They still argue that they saved Chile from communism, and they say Chile needs reconciliation.

That is code for enforced silence, for forgetting. But the lesson of Chile, Peru and Argentina is that reconciliation requires the opposite. Silence prevents a nation from coming to terms. Real reconciliation comes from what the guilty are trying to avoid: full information, reparations and justice.

There were many events that happened on September 11th throughout history. This was one of the more tragic.
 
Well, Allende was no saint, that's clear enough to all the Chilean's I've spoken with (who are no Pinochet-fans, I assure you).

His more radical-militant allies had already made Congress and the Judicial power turn against him, and there was growing discontent or at least discomfort within large sectors of the population towards his government, which didn't have the support of the majority, but only of the biggest "plurarity".

However, taking him out of power in such a way and replacing him with Pinochet's outright dictatorship was worse, and is certainly a TRAGEDY, that is also clear to the Chileans I know. And it rightfully deserves to be remembered today.

Like Allende's daughter admits by now, a political solution had to be found, instead of turning the situation into a direct confrontation, which is what happened. Desperation overcame moderation on both sides.

The US administration of the time and the CIA certainly took advantage of the situation for its own ends, made their sympathies very clear and gave the coup its support, but it is ludicrous to think that they are the only ones responsible for the coup.

That's just scapegoating, and whitewashing both Allende's and Pinochet's roles (though of course, in different directions..one becomes a simple, though brutal, tool, the other an innocent martyr), and forgetting the heavy responsibility that belongs to all of the Chilean society of that time.

Good Day.
 
The problem with democracy in other countries is that citizens overseas will not always take the best interest of the United States into account when voting. These instances are indeed tragic, and will sometimes have to be dealt with with nasty things such as assasinations, coups, or, in the rarest of cases, wars.

I applaud the good intentions of the CIA. While I feel that many of Pinochet's actions were undesireable, they were not necessarily 100% forseeable at the time, nor were they of any consequence to the United States.
 
Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
The problem with democracy in other countries is that citizens overseas will not always take the best interest of the United States into account when voting. These instances are indeed tragic, and will sometimes have to be dealt with with nasty things such as assasinations, coups, or, in the rarest of cases, wars.

I applaud the good intentions of the CIA. While I feel that many of Pinochet's actions were undesireable, they were not necessarily 100% forseeable at the time, nor were they of any consequence to the United States.

Excuse me, but are you saying that citizens of the sovereign nation of CHILE, should vote so as to benefit the UNITED STATES, rather than CHILE?? Are you also saying the same for other, SOVEREIGN NATIONS?

And are you also saying that the killings done by fascist regimes are ONLY bad if they HURT THE UNITED STATES?
 
Originally posted by Ohwell


Excuse me, but are you saying that citizens of the sovereign nation of CHILE, should vote so as to benefit the UNITED STATES, rather than CHILE?? Are you also saying the same for other, SOVEREIGN NATIONS?
[/B]

Such things are in the best interest of the United States, yes. As a citizen and resident of the United States, I feel my interests are best served if other nations serve the best interests of the United States.

This is idealistic, yes. Pratically, if a country goes in a direction that does not hurt the United States but doesn't help it either, I see no need for any "correction", but in many cases, as in Chile, correction was necessary, as either the interests of the United States were harmed or the interests of one of its enemies was helped.
 
Originally posted by Ohwell

And are you also saying that the killings done by fascist regimes are ONLY bad if they HURT THE UNITED STATES?

Killings such as those common under fascist regimes are unfortunate and usually undesireable. However, if, as in Chile, they have no consequential impact on the interests of the United States of America and its citizens then it may be possible to ignore them as an unfortunate, if irrelevant, consequence of a necessary action.

This is not to say that fascist killings are good. We should act within reason to discourage them. Everyone should act within reason to discourage them.
 
Back
Top Bottom