Pinochet dies

[Mojo]

But it was a democratically elected government that the US didn't like.

 

[fishbob]

He'll be buried as he would have wanted, in an unmarked grave under a football stadium.

Looks like the double standard is operating here.
Why is nobody advocating boiling his corpse in pig fat?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Cousin Larry must be crushed.

 

[Darth Rotor]

But it was a democratically elected government that the US didn't like.

And that a lot of Chileans didn't like. I suggest you reat the link provided by our Chilean member, Patricio Elicer.

A guy I went to college with fought in that coup, on the side of the Right. His emotions were rather powerful, regarding Allende's betraya of the Chilean forms of government, and the triple digit inflation, bread prices, etc, that his radically implemented caused.

More than one side to that story.

On the other hand, Pinochet is well past his expiry date.

DR

 

[bob_kark]

Good riddance. Saved the Chilean taxpayers from paying for a trial. Now they just need to find a nice ditch to throw him into, some kerosene, and a match.

 

[Chaos]

And that a lot of Chileans didn't like. I suggest you reat the link provided by our Chilean member, Patricio Elicer.

*snip*

There *is* such a thing as elections, you know?

If Allende was democratically elected, the minority who did not get what they wanted have no ****ing right to take what they want by coup.

 

[Skeptic]

Deleted post

 

[Skeptic]

If Allende was democratically elected, the minority who did not get what they wanted have no ****ing right to take what they want by coup.

It's not a matter of "rights"; it has to do with the fact that Allende's next acts, after democratically taking power, would have undoubtably been to nationalize the economy, ban other political parties, and execute or "reeducate" every "counterrevolutionary" he could lay his hands on--that's what all Marxist governments did once they came to power, whether they got there by a revolution or by elections.

So the coup was not really a coup against a democratically elected government, but against a Marxist dictatorship. That the result was a right-wing dictatorship is not much of a consolation, but at least let us be clear about what the real options were: it was only a question of what kind of dictatorship Chile would be under, not whether it would be under totalitarian rule.

 

[rikzilla]

How about the fact that he deposed a democratically elected government and replaced it with a military dictatorship?

Can a new video of Jay-Z in an Augusto Pinochet t-shirt be far off??

Well okay, he's way too old and ugly to put on a t-shirt! We like our controversial anti-heros to be young, handsome and look great in a beret or dreds. Oh yeah...and be anti-capitalist/imperialist/materialist/industrialist/zionist/establishment/etc-etc-etc.

Pinochet was a murderer and good riddance to him. But there are lots of murderers out there...some are simply more popular than others depending on one's politics or even sense of style.

Let's kick Pinochet's corpse into the unmarked grave he deserves...let's pitch those trendy Che t-shirts in that hole too while we're at it.

-z

 

[Ian Osborne]

It's not a matter of "rights"; it has to do with the fact that Allende's next acts, after democratically taking power, would have undoubtably been to nationalize the economy, ban other political parties, and execute or "reeducate" every "counterrevolutionary" he could lay his hands on.

Ever considered applying for the Million?

 

[BPSCG]

What a shame he didn't live to have a trial and execution.

About damn time.

It makes me wish I believed in Hell, so I'd be comforted by knowing he was being tortured eternally.

One big a**hole less in this world. Too bad it's too late for the thousands and thousands of people that were killed at his command.

Isn't there a wrecked garage somewhere from which he can now be strung by the heels?

Good riddance. Saved the Chilean taxpayers from paying for a trial. Now they just need to find a nice ditch to throw him into, some kerosene, and a match.

I'm just saving all these "I hate that brutal Latin American dictator" posts so y'all have a handy place to find them next year when Fidel goes.

Of course, y'all will have to ratchet up the hatred, since Castro:

• Killed as many people as Pinochet (and he's not done yet);
• Tortured and imprisoned more (and he's not done yet);
• Stole just as much, if not more money (and he's not done yet);
• Stayed in power more than twice as long;
• And, in contrast to Pinochet, who left a thriving economy in his wake, wrecked his country's economy.

 

[headscratcher4]

.
For example, what makes Pinochet any worse than Che Guevara?

Exactly...but usually in the USA at least those who understandably villify Guevara (a murderous thug) find it in their hearts to forgive Pinochet (mostly because he was anti-Marxist -- though his deffinition of who was a marxist/leftist might have even troubled McCarthy).

 

[headscratcher4]

Pinochet took power in a military coup, but left power in a democratic election. Whatever happened in between, it can't make him any worse than any other South American political figure, can it?

For example, what makes Pinochet any worse than Che Guevara?

BTW...he took power from an elected government...part of a struggling, but functional democracy that had been working for a long-time. Not quite the same as, say, overthrowing one dictatorship and replaceing it with another.

 

[Cleon]

Of course, y'all will have to ratchet up the hatred, since Castro:

• Killed as many people as Pinochet (and he's not done yet);
• Tortured and imprisoned more (and he's not done yet);
• Stole just as much, if not more money (and he's not done yet);
• Stayed in power more than twice as long;
• And, in contrast to Pinochet, who left a thriving economy in his wake, wrecked his country's economy.

This idea that somehow Pinochet's anti-communism makes up for the whole "bloodthirsty dictator" bit is absolutely disgusting.

Mysteriously, when Castro dies, I don't think we'll hear a peep from you apologists "explaining" that he wasn't as bad as Saddam Hussein.

 

[headscratcher4]

It's not a matter of "rights"; it has to do with the fact that Allende's next acts, after democratically taking power, would have undoubtably been to nationalize the economy, ban other political parties, and execute or "reeducate" every "counterrevolutionary" he could lay his hands on--that's what all Marxist governments did once they came to power, whether they got there by a revolution or by elections.

So the coup was not really a coup against a democratically elected government, but against a Marxist dictatorship. That the result was a right-wing dictatorship is not much of a consolation, but at least let us be clear about what the real options were: it was only a question of what kind of dictatorship Chile would be under, not whether it would be under totalitarian rule.

The coup was exactly a coup against a democratically elected government. You might object to its agenda, but they won at the ballot box.

Now, as is obvious here, it was a complicated situation. My recolection is that there was serious economic and political dislocation, three major parties vying for government, etc. But, Allende's coaliton won the vote in what had been the longest surviving democracy in South American.

And, don't forget, the United States was there with the generals. So, the coup was motivated, urged, etc. from a non-Chilian source. Would the Generals have acted without Dr. Kissinger? Hard to say.

 

[BPSCG]

This idea that somehow Pinochet's anti-communism makes up for the whole "bloodthirsty dictator" bit is absolutely disgusting.

Did I say that? He killed and tortured people and stole millions. How do you balance the books on that?

That having been said, he left a strong economy behind when he left power, left democratic institutions behind, and left power without having to be dragged out feet first. The number of other military dictators who've done that is probably the same as the number of genuine psychics you've met in the last week.

Castro did none of those things, and he has as much blood on his hands as Pinochet. Yet you hear people, even in these forums, praising Castro because everyone in Cuba has health care (it's lousy, but they have it), and everyone there can read.

All I'm saying is that anyone who hates Pinochet should hate Castro even more. Disagree?

Mysteriously, when Castro dies, I don't think we'll hear a peep from you apologists "explaining" that he wasn't as bad as Saddam Hussein.

He isn't. But unlike Pinochet, when Castro dies, there will be very little that his apologists can put on the scale as a counterweight to his sins.

 

[Cleon]

BPSCG, I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[BPSCG]

BPSCG, I'm embarrassed for you.

Save your sympathy and tell me whether you agree or disagree that Castro is far more reprehensible than Pinochet, and that admiration for Castro is more misplaced than admiration for Pinochet.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The coup was exactly a coup against a democratically elected government. You might object to its agenda, but they won at the ballot box.

Not agenda, actions.

Now, as is obvious here, it was a complicated situation. My recolection is that there was serious economic and political dislocation, three major parties vying for government, etc. But, Allende's coaliton won the vote in what had been the longest surviving democracy in South American.

And oddly enough, the leader of that party began to take steps to create a one party state, in accordance with Marxist principles.

And, don't forget, the United States was there with the generals. So, the coup was motivated, urged, etc. from a non-Chilian source. Would the Generals have acted without Dr. Kissinger? Hard to say.

The motive for action was Chilean, the support a no brainer if you are Dr Kissinger.

That Allende took the lead in a democratic elections does not make his subsequent actions democratic, any more than Aristide's unlawful actions after his election (to include establishment of his palace guard) were in accordance with Haitian law.

As Patricio's link pointed out, his decisions were either illegal, or dubiously legal, according to Chilean law.

Was the only remedy a coup? Don't know.

Whoever made the comment that Pinochet could give a few lessons to Joe MacCarthy struck a chord.

@Chaos:

“We consciously entered into a coalition in order to be the left wing of the system – the capitalist system, that is. By contrast, today, as our program shows, we are struggling to change the system … Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism".
– Allende as told to Regis Debray (Conversations p118)

That bolded part means a one party state. Is that consistent with the multiparty system of Chile?

Would a one party worker's paradise like the Soviet Union have been better for Chile? I don't know. Some people apparently thought so, some did not.

I don't disagree with you that there is no "right" to embark on a coup. So, as is asked often elsewhere, who guards the guard? Again, my old associate was intimately familiar with Allende's influence on his country. It was not benign. Nor was Pinochet's.

DR

 

[PogoPedant]

Let's kick Pinochet's corpse into the unmarked grave he deserves...let's pitch those trendy Che t-shirts in that hole too while we're at it.
-z

Let's not.

What's a more fitting place to end up for a communist revolutionary than as a print on t-shirts worn by the children of capitalists? He has become a shining beacon for globalization and making a buck anyway you can.

I like those prints. They make me smile.