insurgent
Exhausted
An interesting coincidence that the coup happened on September 11th too...
Pinochet - A Chilean Hero
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
An interesting coincidence that the coup happened on September 11th too...
I know Toasty already said this, but.......bravo Richard!
There can be no excuse for the crimes commited by the Pinochet regime, and it is disgusting that people hail him as a champion of liberty.
A State that tortures and kills its own people isn't interventionist?
There can be no excuse for the crimes commited by the Pinochet regime, and it is disgusting that people hail him as a champion of liberty.
A State that tortures and kills its own people isn't interventionist?
insurgent
Exhausted
Wow, triple post, Fez? Haven't seen that before. Only saw double posts! 
Akka
Moody old mage.
Yes. People were democratically electing a left-wing president. That was awful.
Strange how some people value choice, democracy and liberty only when it's their own views that are elected.
"I support democracy, free speech, liberty and choice as long as you do what I say, say what I want you to say, do what I do and elect who I want".
Not that I'm surprised, though.
Pinochet was a great man, unfortunately he's been persecuted by the left-wing press in these years. Indeed, he saved Chile from total misery and devastation, reinstated a high morale in the military and led the country with an iron fist. He followed Fascist doctrine and should be hailed and applauded for his splendid achievements.
Henry Kissinger did a well job in plotting the assassination of Allende, that filthy commie bastard. And it was indeed Richard Nixon who gave the nod of approval to roast Allende, one of his administration's greatest moments.
Henry Kissinger did a well job in plotting the assassination of Allende, that filthy commie bastard. And it was indeed Richard Nixon who gave the nod of approval to roast Allende, one of his administration's greatest moments.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Originally posted by insurgent
Let's not think that he destroyed democracy, he merely changed the form of dictatorship
Okay, let's say you're right. Why does that make him heroic?
The USA fought the Cold War and had to protect its vital interests and stop further communist expansion, particularly in the Americas and indeed the coup was a better solution than a direct military strike would have been.
Yes, yes, I, too am happy the Reds got the chop. But one problem with many Americans is that they don't understand a simple fact: this kind of behavior PROLONGED the cold war; it didn't shorten it. Helping Savimbi and the Afrikaaners massacre civilians in Angola didn't build support for the U.S. view of the world, it lost support, and helped commie propaganda in the process. Do you think so many South Africans would be marxists today - or have been yesterday - if the U.S. actually practised what it preached in its crusade for democracy and had treated South Africa like the totalitarian regime it was (just to pick one relevant example?)?
That's how I think the US should react to their present enemies too, they should overturn the government and impose Western-friendly dictatorships.
Right. Brilliant. How to win friends and influence people. Call me for help in thirty years when the next generation comes calling. That's what happened in Iran, incidentally - US installation of a right-wing dictatorship - and we've seen what an ingenius long-range strategy THAT was.
A right-wing pro-Western dictatorship is better than a left-wing anti-Western dictatorship or indeed an anti-Western dictatorship of another kind.
Let me reconstruct your sentence for you: "a dictatorship is better than a dictatorship or indeed a dictatorship." People play the 'nazi card' alot in arguments. But the funny thing is, it's fair game here, because you have almost word for word replicated the argument used by British appeasers to explain their support for Adolf Hitler, Franco and Benito Mussolini in the 1930s.
BUT, finally I'd like to say that I'm sorry you lost family and yes, he was a cruel dictator, and oppressive too, but he was the lesser evil.
So, since you set the moral standard, who was the lesser evil, Hitler, or Stalin? I want to hear you tell me which one was the hero, because in your moral system, it has to be one or the other. But some of us are mentally capable of escaping the left-right straightjacket just enough to actually say "neither!"
insurgent
Exhausted
Okay, let's say you're right. Why does that make him heroic?
Simple: it doesn't, he isn't.
Yes, yes, I, too am happy the Reds got the chop. But one problem with many Americans is that they don't understand a simple fact: this kind of behavior PROLONGED the cold war; it didn't shorten it. Helping Savimbi and the Afrikaaners massacre civilians in Angola didn't build support for the U.S. view of the world, it lost support, and helped commie propaganda in the process.
The West may have lost popular support, but not vital popular support, since the basic ideals of the West is not rejected by the masses. Also, no, it didn't prolong the Cold War. Yes, if the Soviets had got it their way the Cold War hadn't lasted that long, but I'll have to say I prefer the actual outcome...
Do you think so many South Africans would be marxists today - or have been yesterday - if the U.S. actually practised what it preached in its crusade for democracy and had treated South Africa like the totalitarian regime it was (just to pick one relevant example?)?
I don't think as many South Africans would be Communist (I didn't know there were many red South Africans, but OK), if the new rulers had actually managed to help the country. The situation has worsened in the country significantly since Apartheid (note that I am not saying Apartheid is good or better than the present system, I'm talking economy). And the supposedly high number of reds is probably a product of the economy, not of American treatment of Apartheid.
Right. Brilliant. How to win friends and influence people. Call me for help in thirty years when the next generation comes calling. That's what happened in Iran, incidentally - US installation of a right-wing dictatorship - and we've seen what an ingenius long-range strategy THAT was.
The West abandoned the Shah, he should've been helped to the end, and we can all blame Carter. Look where we are today. The Shah was heading toward democracy and educated, fed the people, though he can't be called democratic, he was certainly better than the present rulers.
In any case, a coup is better than a large-scale invasion, subsequent occupation, and reinstating a democracy that will fall immediately after the first elections. Mark my words, Afghanistan will fall apart once the West departs and the democracy has to stand on its own feet.
Let me reconstruct your sentence for you: "a dictatorship is better than a dictatorship or indeed a dictatorship." People play the 'nazi card' alot in arguments. But the funny thing is, it's fair game here, because you have almost word for word replicated the argument used by British appeasers to explain their support for Adolf Hitler, Franco and Benito Mussolini in the 1930s.
Uh, I hope I haven't unknowingly quoted some British nazi, but that doesn't mean my argument is wrong. The Cold war was between the East and the West and a dictatorship that is friendly to us is, for us at least, better than one hostile to us...
So, since you set the moral standard, who was the lesser evil, Hitler, or Stalin? I want to hear you tell me which one was the hero, because in your moral system, it has to be one or the other. But some of us are mentally capable of escaping the left-right straightjacket just enough to actually say "neither!"
I set no moral standards, at least not standards I want you to follow, but I'd say that situation can't be compared. Neither one of them was worse than the other, but removing Stalin couldn't have been done, so naturally you turn against Hitler. Besides, Stalin never attacked the West.
Both the Chilean dictators were bad, but Pinochet was better than Allende, and remember he reinstored democracy. He made the country richer with his policies and generally Chile would have been in a worse situation if it had been on the other side in the Cold War. Pinochet was a cruel man, but look at it, he made progress and left Chile more advanced than before.
Not a hero, but as stated above, a necessary evil.
Simple: it doesn't, he isn't.
Yes, yes, I, too am happy the Reds got the chop. But one problem with many Americans is that they don't understand a simple fact: this kind of behavior PROLONGED the cold war; it didn't shorten it. Helping Savimbi and the Afrikaaners massacre civilians in Angola didn't build support for the U.S. view of the world, it lost support, and helped commie propaganda in the process.
The West may have lost popular support, but not vital popular support, since the basic ideals of the West is not rejected by the masses. Also, no, it didn't prolong the Cold War. Yes, if the Soviets had got it their way the Cold War hadn't lasted that long, but I'll have to say I prefer the actual outcome...
Do you think so many South Africans would be marxists today - or have been yesterday - if the U.S. actually practised what it preached in its crusade for democracy and had treated South Africa like the totalitarian regime it was (just to pick one relevant example?)?
I don't think as many South Africans would be Communist (I didn't know there were many red South Africans, but OK), if the new rulers had actually managed to help the country. The situation has worsened in the country significantly since Apartheid (note that I am not saying Apartheid is good or better than the present system, I'm talking economy). And the supposedly high number of reds is probably a product of the economy, not of American treatment of Apartheid.
Right. Brilliant. How to win friends and influence people. Call me for help in thirty years when the next generation comes calling. That's what happened in Iran, incidentally - US installation of a right-wing dictatorship - and we've seen what an ingenius long-range strategy THAT was.
The West abandoned the Shah, he should've been helped to the end, and we can all blame Carter.
Look where we are today. The Shah was heading toward democracy and educated, fed the people, though he can't be called democratic, he was certainly better than the present rulers.In any case, a coup is better than a large-scale invasion, subsequent occupation, and reinstating a democracy that will fall immediately after the first elections. Mark my words, Afghanistan will fall apart once the West departs and the democracy has to stand on its own feet.
Let me reconstruct your sentence for you: "a dictatorship is better than a dictatorship or indeed a dictatorship." People play the 'nazi card' alot in arguments. But the funny thing is, it's fair game here, because you have almost word for word replicated the argument used by British appeasers to explain their support for Adolf Hitler, Franco and Benito Mussolini in the 1930s.
Uh, I hope I haven't unknowingly quoted some British nazi, but that doesn't mean my argument is wrong. The Cold war was between the East and the West and a dictatorship that is friendly to us is, for us at least, better than one hostile to us...
So, since you set the moral standard, who was the lesser evil, Hitler, or Stalin? I want to hear you tell me which one was the hero, because in your moral system, it has to be one or the other. But some of us are mentally capable of escaping the left-right straightjacket just enough to actually say "neither!"
I set no moral standards, at least not standards I want you to follow, but I'd say that situation can't be compared. Neither one of them was worse than the other, but removing Stalin couldn't have been done, so naturally you turn against Hitler. Besides, Stalin never attacked the West.
Both the Chilean dictators were bad, but Pinochet was better than Allende, and remember he reinstored democracy. He made the country richer with his policies and generally Chile would have been in a worse situation if it had been on the other side in the Cold War. Pinochet was a cruel man, but look at it, he made progress and left Chile more advanced than before.
Not a hero, but as stated above, a necessary evil.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Well, insurgent, the large number of reds in South Africa actually has a great deal to do with the fact that when ordinary south africans (black and white) asked the world for help in the 1950s and 1960s, the people who answered were reds, and the people who said "well, at least they're OUR fascists" were americans. The result was that the communist party of south africa became wildly popular for no other reason than the fact that it was against apartheid. As for the state of the economy, well, if you count blacks as people, I would say it was always as badly off; it's just now you hear about the other half. The crime wave started before Apartheid ended, not after.
But all in all, I think your biggest problem is that you seem to think of the world like it's one of those old games (e.g. Balance of Power) where you just support a guy or you don't. Iran fell because everyone hated the Shah and the increasing (not decreasing) repression that his efforts to stay in power entailed. The revolution happened because the public wanted one - although there were differences as to what kind of revolution.
What was carter supposed to do - invade iran when the entire country was ready for civil war? And look at places like Nicaragua for proof of a prolonged cold war. Do you think there would even have been a marxist nicaragua if the US hadn't spent so much to help a thug like Somoza? Hell, the bulk of the revolutionaries were middle class entrepenuers; US support for Somoza made the anti-american half of the revolution more popular.
But all in all, I think your biggest problem is that you seem to think of the world like it's one of those old games (e.g. Balance of Power) where you just support a guy or you don't. Iran fell because everyone hated the Shah and the increasing (not decreasing) repression that his efforts to stay in power entailed. The revolution happened because the public wanted one - although there were differences as to what kind of revolution.
What was carter supposed to do - invade iran when the entire country was ready for civil war? And look at places like Nicaragua for proof of a prolonged cold war. Do you think there would even have been a marxist nicaragua if the US hadn't spent so much to help a thug like Somoza? Hell, the bulk of the revolutionaries were middle class entrepenuers; US support for Somoza made the anti-american half of the revolution more popular.
Gerard
Prince
Amazing... absolutely amazing.
I can't believe this posts.
Maybe hitler was a great democrat...
Do you want a pinochet ruler your country?
pinochet was a "necessary evil", so stalin too?
Allende was voted. You believe in democracy only if it is convenient to you?
Pah!
I can't believe this posts.
Maybe hitler was a great democrat...
Do you want a pinochet ruler your country?
pinochet was a "necessary evil", so stalin too?
Allende was voted. You believe in democracy only if it is convenient to you?
Pah!
amadeus
Apply directly to the forehead
Under Allende, inflation skyrocketed to 60 percent. People had to wait in lines for hours just for meat. Socialists in the Chilean congress moved further to the left and pro-Soviet factions, and the more moderate right moved further right. Compromise was impossible, and congress neutralized itself from ability to act, and under that, Allende was nearly able to take absolute control over Chile.
insurgent
Exhausted
RIII: Sorry don't have the time to reply right now. It will come... 
Akka
Moody old mage.
I think that's exactly the point.
Notice how they avoided to answer directly to that ?
Allende should have been shot a lot earlier for ruining the economy. He managed to lead the country on a path of still growing inflation, such a massive inflation that it ranks as the world's highest. All this due to his foolish and fatheaded witless nationalization of the country's main economic sectors, including copper, steel, nitrates, banking, foreign trade, and insurance.
When he took power in January of 1971, the inflation rate had dropped to about 23 percent, an all time low rate for decades. In 1972, not even a year after he assumed power, guess what, the inflation was at an all time unprecedencted rate of 163 % and the following year, 1973, the inflation rate ranked as far the highest in the world at 190%! 
Already by 1971, Chile had officially declared itself in a state of unilateral moratorium on foreign debts, which literally meant the country went bankrupt.
When he took power in January of 1971, the inflation rate had dropped to about 23 percent, an all time low rate for decades. In 1972, not even a year after he assumed power, guess what, the inflation was at an all time unprecedencted rate of 163 % and the following year, 1973, the inflation rate ranked as far the highest in the world at 190%!
Already by 1971, Chile had officially declared itself in a state of unilateral moratorium on foreign debts, which literally meant the country went bankrupt.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
So the cure for high inflation is fascism?
Inflation was over 60% for most of the late 70s and early 80s in Israel. At one point, it was over 400%. Funny, the US reaction then was to send aid, not whack the President.
If any of you seriously beleive that nationalization, gridlock and high inflation are justification for a couple of decades worth of torture and repression, then you deserve to be shot and left for a cripple for a few dollars on the street if only to teach you to get a little perspective. Inflation can be fixed - without coups, usually. Dead people can't be fixed quite so easily.
R.III
Inflation was over 60% for most of the late 70s and early 80s in Israel. At one point, it was over 400%. Funny, the US reaction then was to send aid, not whack the President.
If any of you seriously beleive that nationalization, gridlock and high inflation are justification for a couple of decades worth of torture and repression, then you deserve to be shot and left for a cripple for a few dollars on the street if only to teach you to get a little perspective. Inflation can be fixed - without coups, usually. Dead people can't be fixed quite so easily.
R.III
1) Just look at the Pinochet rule from 1973-1990, he managed very succesfully to recover the economy, and within the next 8 to 10 years after he assumed power, the World Bank could announce that the tide had turned. What had he done then? Pinochet gave back the land to its rightful owners which directly stimulated economic growth, also, he did everything to sell back the massive state properties to its former owners who was robbed when Allende came to power and directed a massive wave of nationalization of the country's largest income resources.
2) Allende was a weak man with a crippling power base as the foundation for his triumph. Do look at Nasser, the former President of Egypt who nationalized the Suez Canal, what did he gain from it in the end? The same or even higher inflation rate and an economy which deteriorated by the years.
3) People like you end up begging for mercy when your trial begins someday
Greadius
:yeah:
Yep, they do. They make the mistake of assuming any election which doesn't produce favorable results must be flawed.
Pinochet was like any other dictator who used economics to solidify and maintain their power. If Allende would have been a free-market economist, Pinochet would have adapted to nationalizing. He was an opportunist in search of power, not an economic visionary.
Similar threads
- Poll
