Palin steps down as Governor of Alaska


Recommended Posts

Sure, lots of leftists look nice and cuddly when they are among your family and friends. A cousin of mine and his wife, driving me to a wedding, commented as we drove through a nice neighbourhood, "These are the people who will get it first when the revolution comes." How darling! What such statements imply, but which we don't like to think about, is that people who make such statements will be among the victims when the counter-revolution comes. Sorry, but playing the Marxist Leftist is simply not consequence-free safe-sex mental masturbation. Masturbation of that sort has its price. The proof is in the pudding. An amnesty and free elections after the death of 3,000 who chose to fight for their murderous principles strikes me as very little to cry over.

The majority of leftists are decent folk who aren't far gone like the revolutionary Marxists are. Let's keep some perspective.

I aɡree that many leftists believe they are well intentioned, and I very much enjoy my cousins' company. But this is a very important truth that people do not ɡrasp. Silly leftist beliefs held in the context of a free country with a responsible ɡovernment are one thinɡ. The very same beliefs held in the context of Chavez or Allende are totally different. Votinɡ is a violent act. It is a substitute for civil war. If you vote in a would-be dictator, and continue in spoutinɡ leftist nonsense, at some point you have become the apoloɡists and advocate of a murderer. The difference is subtle and the chanɡe catches people by surprise. Do you really think that all those ɡermans voted for a dictatorship under Hitler or that people who voted for Chavez owuld approve of firinɡ squads? But then what happens when the person you voted for does start doinɡ those bad thinɡs? Does no one have responsibility for their words? Can they keep on usinɡ that lanɡuaɡe because when they used it before it was all in fun? At some point, protestinɡ on behalf of a leftist (dictator) becomes protestinɡ on behalf of a (leftist) dictator. Freedom of speech is contextual. One does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. One does not have the freedom to advocate the initiation of violence, or support for a dictator who uses violence. Once your man in office starts seizinɡ people's property and throwinɡ them in jail if they resist, you are on the dictator's side in a civil war. This is not a ɡame. This country was close to civil war in 2000 when ɡore tried to steal the election, and it isn't very far from civil war now. People who take words seriously and who object to calls for violence aɡainst the rich or whomever are not the ones who need to take it easy. It is people who call for revolution who need to learn the danɡer of the objects they are playinɡ with.

What, exactly, are you going on about?

My point is that, by and large, most leftists are not psychopaths drooling about the coming revolution. They are typically well-intentioned people, usually rational in other areas of their life, who believe in dangerous nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may not be able to help doing it under the circumstances, but in such a case, it is nothing to feel guilty for or be indifferent to. Or be proud of for that matter.

Here are just a few of the techniques used by this regime on their capitives:

* Deliberate corporal lesions

* Bodily hangings [suspensions]

* Application of electricity

* Mock execution by firing squad

* Sexual aggression and violence

* Witnessing and listening to torture committed on others

* Russian roulette

* Witnessing the execution of other detainees

* Asphyxia

* Exposure to extreme temperatures

I can guarantee that these were not necessary to stave off communism.

Ted and Matus:

The entire argument against my judgment of Pinochet as pure evil seems to be that what happened in Chile was preferable to the alternative of communism. Perhaps, but this does not make Pinochet any less of an evil scumbag. If murderer A kills five people every month, and murderer B kills thirty people every month, it is rational to conclude that this former is less dangerous than the latter. It does not mean, however, that he is a good man, let alone some kind of hero of freedom. It is still completely immoral to idolize a murderer or dictator of any kind.

Yes, that's why I said war is hell and civil war is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, lots of leftists look nice and cuddly when they are among your family and friends. A cousin of mine and his wife, driving me to a wedding, commented as we drove through a nice neighbourhood, "These are the people who will get it first when the revolution comes." How darling! What such statements imply, but which we don't like to think about, is that people who make such statements will be among the victims when the counter-revolution comes. Sorry, but playing the Marxist Leftist is simply not consequence-free safe-sex mental masturbation. Masturbation of that sort has its price. The proof is in the pudding. An amnesty and free elections after the death of 3,000 who chose to fight for their murderous principles strikes me as very little to cry over.

The majority of leftists are decent folk who aren't far gone like the revolutionary Marxists are. Let's keep some perspective.

I aɡree that many leftists believe they are well intentioned, and I very much enjoy my cousins' company. But this is a very important truth that people do not ɡrasp. Silly leftist beliefs held in the context of a free country with a responsible ɡovernment are one thinɡ. The very same beliefs held in the context of Chavez or Allende are totally different. Votinɡ is a violent act. It is a substitute for civil war. If you vote in a would-be dictator, and continue in spoutinɡ leftist nonsense, at some point you have become the apoloɡists and advocate of a murderer. The difference is subtle and the chanɡe catches people by surprise. Do you really think that all those ɡermans voted for a dictatorship under Hitler or that people who voted for Chavez owuld approve of firinɡ squads? But then what happens when the person you voted for does start doinɡ those bad thinɡs? Does no one have responsibility for their words? Can they keep on usinɡ that lanɡuaɡe because when they used it before it was all in fun? At some point, protestinɡ on behalf of a leftist (dictator) becomes protestinɡ on behalf of a (leftist) dictator. Freedom of speech is contextual. One does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. One does not have the freedom to advocate the initiation of violence, or support for a dictator who uses violence. Once your man in office starts seizinɡ people's property and throwinɡ them in jail if they resist, you are on the dictator's side in a civil war. This is not a ɡame. This country was close to civil war in 2000 when ɡore tried to steal the election, and it isn't very far from civil war now. People who take words seriously and who object to calls for violence aɡainst the rich or whomever are not the ones who need to take it easy. It is people who call for revolution who need to learn the danɡer of the objects they are playinɡ with.

What, exactly, are you going on about?

My point is that, by and large, most leftists are not psychopaths drooling about the coming revolution. They are typically well-intentioned people, usually rational in other areas of their life, who believe in dangerous nonsense.

Yes, very, very, dangerous nonsense, dangerous to themselves in the foremost. I assume what I said was absolutely clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

I am listening to Anchorage radio on the internet and Palin signed a gun rights bill today.

And another "citizen" filed another ethics complaint against her, the 4th since she announced

that she is resigning.

She made a statement that this continuous filing establishes that the ethics law in the State

of Alaska must be overhauled.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, lots of leftists look nice and cuddly when they are among your family and friends. A cousin of mine and his wife, driving me to a wedding, commented as we drove through a nice neighbourhood, "These are the people who will get it first when the revolution comes." How darling! What such statements imply, but which we don't like to think about, is that people who make such statements will be among the victims when the counter-revolution comes. Sorry, but playing the Marxist Leftist is simply not consequence-free safe-sex mental masturbation. Masturbation of that sort has its price. The proof is in the pudding. An amnesty and free elections after the death of 3,000 who chose to fight for their murderous principles strikes me as very little to cry over.

The majority of leftists are decent folk who aren't far gone like the revolutionary Marxists are. Let's keep some perspective.

I aɡree that many leftists believe they are well intentioned, and I very much enjoy my cousins' company. But this is a very important truth that people do not ɡrasp. Silly leftist beliefs held in the context of a free country with a responsible ɡovernment are one thinɡ. The very same beliefs held in the context of Chavez or Allende are totally different. Votinɡ is a violent act. It is a substitute for civil war. If you vote in a would-be dictator, and continue in spoutinɡ leftist nonsense, at some point you have become the apoloɡists and advocate of a murderer. The difference is subtle and the chanɡe catches people by surprise. Do you really think that all those ɡermans voted for a dictatorship under Hitler or that people who voted for Chavez owuld approve of firinɡ squads? But then what happens when the person you voted for does start doinɡ those bad thinɡs? Does no one have responsibility for their words? Can they keep on usinɡ that lanɡuaɡe because when they used it before it was all in fun? At some point, protestinɡ on behalf of a leftist (dictator) becomes protestinɡ on behalf of a (leftist) dictator. Freedom of speech is contextual. One does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. One does not have the freedom to advocate the initiation of violence, or support for a dictator who uses violence. Once your man in office starts seizinɡ people's property and throwinɡ them in jail if they resist, you are on the dictator's side in a civil war. This is not a ɡame. This country was close to civil war in 2000 when ɡore tried to steal the election, and it isn't very far from civil war now. People who take words seriously and who object to calls for violence aɡainst the rich or whomever are not the ones who need to take it easy. It is people who call for revolution who need to learn the danɡer of the objects they are playinɡ with.

What, exactly, are you going on about?

My point is that, by and large, most leftists are not psychopaths drooling about the coming revolution. They are typically well-intentioned people, usually rational in other areas of their life, who believe in dangerous nonsense.

Yes, very, very, dangerous nonsense, dangerous to themselves in the foremost. I assume what I said was absolutely clear.

How were we close to a civil war in 2000? Hell, how are we close to a civil war now?

Barack Obama becoming president is mostly the fault of conservatives, you know. He wouldn't have had a chance at the oval office if George W Bush's administration hadn't so thoroughly linked capitalism with fiscal irresponsibility in the public mind in the first place. And the fact that blowhards like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh represent the modern Republican party doesn't exactly help, either.

Do know what the average American layman thinks now? He thinks that it is the fault of "unregulated capitalism" that the economy is tanking. Hell, Alan Greenspan even said as much. So, most people now associate capitalism with immorality, fiscal irresponsibility, Enron, and George W Bush, and you expect them NOT to support Barack Obama?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, lots of leftists look nice and cuddly when they are among your family and friends. A cousin of mine and his wife, driving me to a wedding, commented as we drove through a nice neighbourhood, "These are the people who will get it first when the revolution comes." How darling! What such statements imply, but which we don't like to think about, is that people who make such statements will be among the victims when the counter-revolution comes. Sorry, but playing the Marxist Leftist is simply not consequence-free safe-sex mental masturbation. Masturbation of that sort has its price. The proof is in the pudding. An amnesty and free elections after the death of 3,000 who chose to fight for their murderous principles strikes me as very little to cry over.

The majority of leftists are decent folk who aren't far gone like the revolutionary Marxists are. Let's keep some perspective.

I aɡree that many leftists believe they are well intentioned, and I very much enjoy my cousins' company. But this is a very important truth that people do not ɡrasp. Silly leftist beliefs held in the context of a free country with a responsible ɡovernment are one thinɡ. The very same beliefs held in the context of Chavez or Allende are totally different. Votinɡ is a violent act. It is a substitute for civil war. If you vote in a would-be dictator, and continue in spoutinɡ leftist nonsense, at some point you have become the apoloɡists and advocate of a murderer. The difference is subtle and the chanɡe catches people by surprise. Do you really think that all those ɡermans voted for a dictatorship under Hitler or that people who voted for Chavez owuld approve of firinɡ squads? But then what happens when the person you voted for does start doinɡ those bad thinɡs? Does no one have responsibility for their words? Can they keep on usinɡ that lanɡuaɡe because when they used it before it was all in fun? At some point, protestinɡ on behalf of a leftist (dictator) becomes protestinɡ on behalf of a (leftist) dictator. Freedom of speech is contextual. One does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. One does not have the freedom to advocate the initiation of violence, or support for a dictator who uses violence. Once your man in office starts seizinɡ people's property and throwinɡ them in jail if they resist, you are on the dictator's side in a civil war. This is not a ɡame. This country was close to civil war in 2000 when ɡore tried to steal the election, and it isn't very far from civil war now. People who take words seriously and who object to calls for violence aɡainst the rich or whomever are not the ones who need to take it easy. It is people who call for revolution who need to learn the danɡer of the objects they are playinɡ with.

What, exactly, are you going on about?

My point is that, by and large, most leftists are not psychopaths drooling about the coming revolution. They are typically well-intentioned people, usually rational in other areas of their life, who believe in dangerous nonsense.

Yes, very, very, dangerous nonsense, dangerous to themselves in the foremost. I assume what I said was absolutely clear.

How were we close to a civil war in 2000? Hell, how are we close to a civil war now?

Barack Obama becoming president is mostly the fault of conservatives, you know. He wouldn't have had a chance at the oval office if George W Bush's administration hadn't so thoroughly linked capitalism with fiscal irresponsibility in the public mind in the first place. And the fact that blowhards like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh represent the modern Republican party doesn't exactly help, either.

Do know what the average American layman thinks now? He thinks that it is the fault of "unregulated capitalism" that the economy is tanking. Hell, Alan Greenspan even said as much. So, most people now associate capitalism with immorality, fiscal irresponsibility, Enron, and George W Bush, and you expect them NOT to support Barack Obama?

Civil war is not a matter of mere disagreement on issues, civil war is a failure of legitimacy, such as can result from such things as stealing an election. There is a reason why the party out of power is called the loyal opposition. Once the fairness of elections is no longer believed in, violence in the streets is just an accident away. Look at Iran, look at contested elections everywhere. America is no different. We were one supreme court decision and less than a week away from violent demonstrations in 2000. You are too young to know the reality of riots. They have happened here before, and if they happen here again for the wrong reason the result could be catastrophic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The choice between two evils is still evil.

You may not be able to help doing it under the circumstances, but in such a case, it is nothing to feel guilty for or be indifferent to. Or be proud of for that matter.

The only good (as opposed to "lesser evil") ...

I find such sentiments hardly more than a semantic game attempting to create some philosophical truth, of course "the choice between two evils is still evil" obfuscates the difference between a horrific murderous communist dictatorship that kills tens of millions - and a Pinochet like dictatorship that lays the foundations for a free nation, but kills 3,000, many of which probably were communist terrorists. Yes they are both evil, but they are not comparably evil.

If, in fact, you acknowledge one is a 'lesser' evil, then, since every statement implies it's logical opposite, the one is also the "best of available goods" losing cite of that is a surrender to cynicism.

is to move on from there and make a world where this kind of limited choice is no longer possible.

And how do we get to that world? If we don't acknowledge the best of available goods - and work to pursue those courses - then we will never make salient progress toward a world where that kind of limited choice is the only available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

That's no problem. Why don't we put your family among the next 3,000 or so? That "probably" of yours includes this possibility since it is not a "definitely." (btw - That 3,000 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too low.)

Since it would be your family among the families you are brushing off with such indifference, how would that feel? A move in the direction of a better world?

Better for whom?

The murdered innocent people?

Your murdered family members?

You show you know nothing of the brutal military dictatorships they had in South America. I lived under one. If the left rose there, it was in defiance of an enormous injustice, not because people fell in love with Karl Marx. Latins don't care much for him or his ideas.

You asked how we get to the kind of world I mentioned. I already said it, but I will say it again. Brazil is doing an excellent job of moving in the right direction without murdering its own citizens over ideology. Brazil has a far better economy than Chile (although it is much bigger). In some parameters Chile does better, especially since it is now so heavily dependent of foreign trade, but there is no real comparison between the two. Brazil is a giant and Chile is normal size.

It was not necessary for Pinochet to do what he did. The other Latin American countries that are doing relatively well prove that. He knew what he was doing and it was out of spite and hatred, not out of love for his people.

I find it odd for people of any stripe to preach murder of citizens (including innocent ones) over ideology as a good thing.

It's not a good thing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relationship with the Chilean Communist Party

Allende had a close relationship with the Chilean Communist Party from the beginning of his political career. On his fourth (and successful) bid for the presidency, the Communist Party appointed him as the alternate for its own candidate, the world-renowned poet Pablo Neruda.

During his presidential term, Allende took positions held by the communists, in opposition to the views of the socialists. Some argue however that this reversed at the end of his period in office.[8]

[edit] Election

Chilean workers marching in support of Allende in 1964.

Main article: Chilean presidential election, 1970

Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") coalition. On 4 September 1970, he obtained a narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri, a former president, with 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), whose electoral platform was similar to Allende's. According to the Chilean Constitution of the time, if no presidential candidate obtained a majority of the popular vote, Congress would choose one of the two candidates with the highest number of votes as the winner. Tradition was for Congress to vote for the candidate with the highest popular vote, regardless of margin. Indeed, former president Jorge Alessandri had been elected in 1958 with only 31.6 percent of the popular vote, defeating Allende.

One month after the election, on October 20, while the senate had still to reach a decision and negotiations were actively in place between the Christian Democrats and the Popular Unity, General René Schneider, Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army, was shot resisting a kidnap attempt by a group led by General Roberto Viaux. Hospitalized, he died of his wounds three days later, on October 23. Viaux's kidnapping plan had been supported by the CIA, although the then U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger claims to have ordered the plans postponed at the last moment. Many believe Kissinger's statement to be false and evidence points towards CIA director Richard Helms following orders directly from President Nixon to do whatever was necessary in order “to get rid of him”, referring to Allende. Nixon handed over a blank check to Helms, which allowed him to use full discretion in ridding Chile of Allende’s presence and “making the economy scream”. Schneider was a defender of the "constitutionalist" doctrine that the army's role is exclusively professional, its mission being to protect the country's sovereignty and not to interfere in politics.

General Schneider's death was widely disapproved of and, for the time, ended military opposition to Allende[9], whom the parliament finally chose on 24 October. On 26 October, President Eduardo Frei named General Carlos Prats as commander in chief of the army to replace René Schneider.

Allende assumed the presidency on 3 November 1970 after signing a Statute of Constitutional Guarantees proposed by the Christian Democrats in return for their support in Congress. In an extensive interview with Régis Debray in 1972, Allende explained his reasons for agreeing to the guarantees.[10] Some critics have interpreted Allende's responses as an admission that signing the Statute was only a tactical move. [11]

[edit] Presidency

Main article: Chile under Allende

Allende with Argentina President Héctor José Cámpora

Upon assuming power, Allende began to carry out his platform of implementing a socialist program called La vía chilena al socialismo ("the Chilean Path to Socialism"). This included nationalization of large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking), and government administration of the health care system, educational system (With the help of an American Educator, Jane A. Hobson-Gonzalez from Kokomo, Indiana), a program of free milk for children in the schools and shanty towns of Chile, and an expansion of the land seizure and redistribution already begun under his predecessor Eduardo Frei Montalva,[12] who had nationalized between one-fifth and one-quarter of all the properties listed for takeover).[13] The Allende government's intention was to seize all holdings of more than eighty irrigated hectares.[14] Allende also intended to improve the socio-economic welfare of Chile's poorest citizens[citation needed]; a key element was to provide employment, either in the new nationalised enterprises or on public work projects.[citation needed]

Chilean presidents were allowed a maximum term of six years, which may explain Allende's haste to restructure the economy. Not only was a major restructuring program organized (the Vuskovic plan), he had to make it a success if a Socialist successor to Allende was going to be elected. In the first year of Allende's term, the short-term economic results of Minister of the Economy Pedro Vuskovic's expansive monetary policy were favorable: 12% industrial growth and an 8.6% increase in GDP, accompanied by major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However by 1972, the Chilean escudo had an inflation rate of 140%. The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth"); and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined [Flores, 1997: source requires title/publisher]. The combination of inflation and government-mandated price-fixing, together with the "disappearance" of basic commodities from supermarket shelves, led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour.[15] The Chilean economy also suffered as a result of a US campaign against the Allende government [16]. The Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries. His implementation of these policies was strongly opposed by landowners, employers, businessmen and transporters associations, and some civil servants and professional unions. The rightist opposition was led by National Party, the Roman Catholic Church (which in 1973 was displeased with the direction of educational policy[17]), and eventually the Christian Democrats. There were growing tensions with foreign multinational corporations and the government of the United States.

Allende also undertook Project Cybersyn, a system of networked telex machines and computers. Cybersyn was developed by British cybernetics expert Stafford Beer. The network transmitted data from factories to the government in Santiago, allowing for economic planning in real-time.[18]

In 1971, Chile re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba, joining Mexico and Canada in rejecting a previously-established Organization of American States convention prohibiting governments in the Western Hemisphere from establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. Shortly afterward, Cuban president Fidel Castro made a month-long visit to Chile. Originally the visit was supposed to be one week, however Castro enjoyed Chile, and one week turned to another. The visit, in which Castro held massive rallies and gave public advice to Allende, was seen by those on the political right as proof to support their view that "The Chilean Path to Socialism" was an effort to put Chile on the same path as Cuba. Castro after his visit draws the conclusion; Cuba has nothing to learn from Chile.

October 1972 saw the first of what were to be a wave of strikes. The strikes were led first by truckers, and later by small businessmen, some (mostly professional) unions, and some student groups. Other than the inevitable damage to the economy, the chief effect of the 24-day strike was to induce Allende to bring the head of the army, general Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister.[15] Allende also instructed the government to begin requisitioning trucks in order to keep the nation from coming to a halt. Government supporters also helped to mobilize trucks and buses but violence served as a deterrent to full mobilization, even with police protection for the strike breakers. Allende's actions were eventually declared unlawful by the Chilean appeals court and the government was ordered to return trucks to their owners.[19]

Throughout this presidency racial tensions between the poor descendants of indigenous people and slaves who supported Allende's reforms and the white settler elite increased.[20]

Allende raised wages on a number of occasions throughout 1970 and 1971, but these wage hikes were negated by the in-tandem inflation of Chile's fiat currency. Although price rises had also been high under Frei (27% a year between 1967 and 1970), a basic basket of consumer goods rose by 120% from 190 to 421 escudos in one month alone, August 1972. In the period 1970-72, while Allende was in government, exports fell 24% and imports rose 26%, with imports of food rising an estimated 149%.[21]

Export income fell due to a decline in the price of copper on international markets; copper being the single most important export (more than half of Chile's export receipts were from this sole commodity[22]). Adverse fluctuation in the international price of copper negatively affected the economy throughout 1971-2: The price of copper fell from a peak of $66 per ton in 1970 to only $48–9 in 1971 and 1972.[23]

Throughout his presidency, Allende remained at odds with the Chilean Congress, which was dominated by the Christian Democratic Party. The Christian Democrats (who had campaigned on a socialist platform in the 1970 elections, but drifted away from those positions during Allende's presidency, eventually forming a coalition with the National Party), continued to accuse Allende of leading Chile toward a Cuban-style dictatorship, and sought to overturn many of his more radical policies. Allende and his opponents in Congress repeatedly accused each other of undermining the Chilean Constitution and acting undemocratically.

Allende's increasingly bold socialist policies (partly in response to pressure from some of the more radical members within his coalition), combined with his close contacts with Cuba, heightened fears in Washington. The Nixon administration began exerting economic pressure on Chile via multilateral organizations, and continued to back Allende's opponents in the Chilean Congress. Almost immediately after his election, Nixon directed CIA and U.S. State Department officials to "put pressure" on the Allende government.[24]

[edit] Foreign Relations during Allende's Presidency

This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (May 2009)

The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed.

The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result.

Please see discussion on the talk page considering whether its inclusion is warranted.(May 2009)

Allende's Popular Unity government tried to maintain normal relations with the United States. When Chile nationalized its copper industry, Washington cut off U.S. credits and increased its support to opposition. Forced to seek alterantive sources of trade and finance, Chile gained commitments from the Soviet Union to invest some $400 million in Chile in the next six years. Allende's government was disappointed that it received far less economic assistance from the USSR than it hoped for. Trade between the two countries did not significantly increase and the credits were mainly linked to the purchase of Soviet equipment. Moreover, credits from the Soviet Union were much less than those provided by People's Republic of China and countries of Eastern Europe. When Allende visited the USSR in late 1972 in search of more aid and additional lines of credit, after 3 years of political and economic failure and chaos he was turned down. [25]

[edit] Foreign involvement in Chile during Allende's Presidency

Statue of Allende in front of the Palacio de la Moneda

[edit] US Involvement

Main article: United States intervention in Chile

The possibility of Allende winning Chile's 1970 election was deemed a disaster by a US government desirous of protecting US business interests and preventing any further spread of communism during the Cold War.[26] In September 1970, President Nixon informed the CIA that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him[27]. The CIA's plans to impede Allende's investiture as President of Chile were known as "Track I" and "Track II"; Track I sought to prevent Allende from assuming power via so-called "parliamentary trickery", while under the Track II initiative, the CIA tried to convince key Chilean military officers to carry out a coup.[27]

The United State administration believed that there was a possibility of Soviet-style communist takeover and was openly hostile to Allende.[16][28] During Nixon's presidency, U.S. officials attempted to prevent Allende's election by financing political parties aligned with opposition candidate Jorge Alessandri and supporting strikes in the mining and transportation sectors.[29]

After the 1970 election, the Track I operation attempted to incite Chile's outgoing president, Eduardo Frei Montalva, to persuade his party (PDC) to vote in Congress for Alessandri.[citation needed] Under the plan, Alessandri would resign his office immediately after assuming it and call new elections. Eduardo Frei would then be constitutionally able to run again (since the Chilean Constitution did not allow a president to hold two consecutive terms, but allowed multiple non-consecutive ones), and presumably easily defeat Allende. The Chilean Congress instead chose Allende as President, on the condition that he would sign a "Statute of Constitutional Guarantees" affirming that he would respect and obey the Chilean Constitution, and that his reforms would not undermine any element of it.

Track II was aborted, as parallel initiatives already underway within the Chilean military rendered it moot.[30]

The United States has acknowledged having played a role in Chilean politics prior to the coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup.[31]

Much of the internal opposition to Allende's policies came from business sector, and recently-released U.S. government documents confirm that the U.S. indirectly [16] funded the truck drivers' strike, [32] which had exacerbated the already chaotic economic situation prior to the coup.

The most prominent U.S. corporations in Chile prior to Allende's presidency were the Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT, International Telephone and Telegraph. Both the copper corporations aimed to expand privatized copper production in the city of El Teniente, Chile, the world's largest underground copper mine.[33] At the end of 1968, according to Department of Commerce data, U.S. corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. Anaconda and Kennecott accounted for 28% of U.S. holdings, but ITT had by far the largest holding of any single corporation, with an investment of $200 million in Chile.[33] In 1970, before Allende was elected, ITT owned 70% of Chitelco, the Chilean Telephone Company and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Documents released in 2000 by the CIA confirmed that before the elections of 1970, ITT gave $700,000 to Allende's conservative opponent, Jorge Alessandri, with help from the CIA on how to channel the money safely. ITT president Harold Geneen also offered $1 million to the CIA to help defeat Allende in the elections.[34]

After General Pinochet assumed power, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it," but "we helped them...created the conditions as great as possible." (referring to the coup itself)[35]. Recent documents declassified under the Clinton administration's Chile Declassification Project show that the United States government and the CIA had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970 immediately before he took office ("Project FUBELT"), but claims of their direct involvement in the 1973 coup are not proven by any publicly available documentary evidence, although many documents still remain classified.[citation needed]

[edit] Soviet involvement

Material based on reports from the "Mitrokhin Archive" the KGB said of Allende that "he was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile's and the USSR's intelligence services". It is also claimed that Allende was given $30,000 "in order to solidify the trusted relations" with him. [36]

According to Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB major and senior archivist in the KGB intelligence central of Yasenevo, 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.[37]

The original allocation of money for these elections through the KGB was $400,000, and additional personal subsidy of $50,000 directly to Allende.[37]

Cambridge professor and historian Christopher Andrew argued 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 permission for additional money and other resources from the Central Committee of the CPSU to ensure an Allende victory in Congress. In his request on 24 October, he stated that the 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". In his KGB file, Allende was reported to have "stated his willingness to co-operate on a confidential basis and provide any necessary assistance, since he considered himself a friend of the Soviet Union". He willingly shared political information.[37]

Professor Andrew writes that regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to "exert a favorable influence on Chilean government policy". According to Allende's KGB file, he "was made to understand the necessity of reorganizing Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile's and the USSR's intelligence services". Allende was said to react positively.

According to Professor Andrew's account of the Mitrokhin archives, "In the KGB's view, Allende's fundamental error was his unwillingness to use force against his opponents. Without establishing complete control over all the machinery of the State, his hold on power could not be secure."[36]

Declarations from KGB General Nikolai Leonov, former Deputy Chief of the First Chief Directorate of the State Security Committee of the KGB, confirmed that the Soviet Union supported Allende's government economically, politically and militarily. [38]

In a interview with KGB general Leonov at the Chilean Center of Public Studies (CEP) he revealed that the Soviet economic support included over 100 million dollars in credit, three fishing ships (that distributed 17,000 tons of frozen fish to the population), factories (as help after the 1971 earthquake), 3,100 tractors, 74,000 tons of wheat and more than a million tins of condensed milk. [38]

Political and moral support came mostly through the Communist Party and unions. However, there were some fundamental differences between Allende and Soviet political analysts who believed that some violence – or measures that those analysts "theoretically considered to be just" – should have been used.[38]

In the northern hemisphere summer of 1973, the USSR had approved the delivery of weapons (artillery, tanks) to the Chilean Army. However, when news of an attempt from the Army to depose Allende through a coup d'état reached Soviet officials, the shipment was redirected to another country.[38]

[edit] Crisis

See also: Tanquetazo and Chile under Allende

On 29 June 1973, Colonel Roberto Souper surrounded the La Moneda presidential with his tank regiment and failed to depose the Allende Government. [39] That failed coup d’état — known as the Tanquetazo tank putsch — organised by the nationalist Patria y Libertad paramilitary group, was followed by a general strike at the end of July that included the copper miners of El Teniente.

In August 1973, a constitutional crisis occurred, and the Supreme Court publicly complained about the Allende Government's inability to enforce the law of the land, and, on 22 August, the Chamber of Deputies (with the Christian Democrats united with the National Party) accused Allende`s Government of unconstitutional acts by his refusal to promulgate constitutional amendments already approved by the chamber of deputies that prevented his government from continuing his massive statization plan[40] and called upon the military to enforce constitutional order. [41]

For months, the Allende Government had feared calling upon the Carabineros (Carabineers) national police, suspecting them disloyal to his government. On 9 August, President Allende appointed Gen. Carlos Prats as Minister of Defense. On 24 August 1973, General Prats was forced to resign both as defense minister and as the Army Commander-in-chief, embarrassed by both the Alejandrina Cox incident and a public protest in front of his house by the wives of his generals. Gen. Augusto Pinochet replaced him as Army commander-in-chief the same day. [41]

[edit] Supreme Court's resolution

On 26 May 1973, Chile’s Supreme Court unanimously denounced the Allende government's disruption of the legality of the nation in its failure to uphold judicial decisions, because of its continual refusal to permit police execution of judicial resolutions contradicting the Government's measures.

[edit] Chamber of Deputies' resolution

On 22 August 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies voted 81 to 47, the resolution titled Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy that asked the military to put an immediate end to breach[es of] the Constitution . . . 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 co-existence among Chileans.

The resolution declared that the Allende Government sought . . . to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State . . . [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system, claiming it had made violations of the Constitution . . . a permanent system of conduct. Essentially, most of the accusations were about the Socialist Government disregarding the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government.

Specifically, the Socialist Government of President Allende was accused of:

* ruling by decree, thwarting the normal legislative system

* refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its partisans; not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives

* ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office

* sundry media offenses; usurping control of the National Television Network and applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government...

* allowing its socialist supporters to assemble armed, preventing the same by its right wing opponents

* . . . supporting more than 1,500 illegal ‘takings’ of farms...

* illegal repression of the El Teniente miners’ strike

* illegally limiting emigration

Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected [socialist] armed groups, which . . . are headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces. President Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterized as notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks.

[edit] President Allende's response

Two days later, on 24 August 1973, President Allende responded, [42] characterising the Congress's declaration as destined to damage the country’s prestige abroad and create internal confusion, predicting It will facilitate the seditious intention of certain sectors. He noted that the declaration (passed 81-47 in the Chamber of Deputies) had not obtained the two-thirds Senate majority constitutionally required to convict the president of abuse of power: essentially, the Congress were invoking the intervention of the armed forces and of Order against a democratically-elected government and subordinat[ing] political representation of national sovereignty to the armed institutions, which neither can nor ought to assume either political functions or the representation of the popular will.

Mr Allende argued he had obeyed constitutional means for including military men to the cabinet at the service of civic peace and national security, defending republican institutions against insurrection and terrorism. In contrast, he said that Congress was promoting a coup d’état or a civil war with a declaration full of affirmations that had already been refuted before-hand and which, in substance and process (directly handing it to the ministers rather than directly handing it to the President) violated a dozen articles of the (then-current) Constitution. He further argued that the legislature was usurping the government's executive function.

President Allende wrote: Chilean democracy is a conquest by all of the people. It is neither the work nor the gift of the exploiting classes, and it will be defended by those who, with sacrifices accumulated over generations, have imposed it . . . With a tranquil conscience . . . I sustain that never before has Chile had a more democratic government than that over which I have the honor to preside . . . I solemnly reiterate my decision to develop democracy and a state of law to their ultimate consequences . . . Parliament has made itself a bastion against the transformations . . . and has done everything it can to perturb the functioning of the finances and of the institutions, sterilizing all creative initiatives.

Adding that economic and political means would be needed to relieve the country's current crisis, and that the Congress were obstructing said means; having already paralyzed the State, they sought to destroy it. He concluded by calling upon the workers, all democrats and patriots to join him in defending the Chilean Constitution and the revolutionary process.

[edit] The coup

Main article: 1973 Chilean coup d'état

In early September 1973, Allende floated the idea of resolving the constitutional crisis with a plebiscite. His speech outlining such a solution was scheduled for 11 September, but he was never able to deliver it. On September 11, 1973, the Chilean military staged a coup against Allende.

[edit] Death

Main article: Death of Salvador Allende

Just prior to the capture of La Moneda (the Presidential Palace), with gunfire and explosions clearly audible in the background, Allende gave his (subsequently famous) farewell speech to Chileans on live radio, speaking of himself in the past tense, of his love for Chile and of his deep faith in its future. He stated that his commitment to Chile did not allow him to take an easy way out and be used as a propaganda tool by those he called "traitors" (accepting an offer of safe passage), clearly implying he intended to fight to the end.[43]

"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!"

President Salvador Allende's farewell speech, 11 September 1973.[44]

Shortly afterwards, Allende died. An official announcement declared that he had committed suicide with an automatic rifle.[45][dead link]

In his 2004 documentary Salvador Allende, Patricio Guzmán incorporates a graphic image of Allende's corpse in the position it was found after his death. According to Guzmán's documentary, Allende shot himself with a pistol and not a rifle.

At the time, and for many years after, his supporters presumed that he was killed by the forces staging the coup.[citation needed] In recent years, however, the view that he committed suicide has become accepted, particularly as different testimonies confirm details of the suicide reported in news and documentary interviews.[46][47][48][49][50] His personal doctor ruled the death a suicide, and his family accepts the finding.[51]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, lots of leftists look nice and cuddly when they are among your family and friends. A cousin of mine and his wife, driving me to a wedding, commented as we drove through a nice neighbourhood, "These are the people who will get it first when the revolution comes." How darling! What such statements imply, but which we don't like to think about, is that people who make such statements will be among the victims when the counter-revolution comes. Sorry, but playing the Marxist Leftist is simply not consequence-free safe-sex mental masturbation. Masturbation of that sort has its price. The proof is in the pudding. An amnesty and free elections after the death of 3,000 who chose to fight for their murderous principles strikes me as very little to cry over.

The majority of leftists are decent folk who aren't far gone like the revolutionary Marxists are. Let's keep some perspective.

I aɡree that many leftists believe they are well intentioned, and I very much enjoy my cousins' company. But this is a very important truth that people do not ɡrasp. Silly leftist beliefs held in the context of a free country with a responsible ɡovernment are one thinɡ. The very same beliefs held in the context of Chavez or Allende are totally different. Votinɡ is a violent act. It is a substitute for civil war. If you vote in a would-be dictator, and continue in spoutinɡ leftist nonsense, at some point you have become the apoloɡists and advocate of a murderer. The difference is subtle and the chanɡe catches people by surprise. Do you really think that all those ɡermans voted for a dictatorship under Hitler or that people who voted for Chavez owuld approve of firinɡ squads? But then what happens when the person you voted for does start doinɡ those bad thinɡs? Does no one have responsibility for their words? Can they keep on usinɡ that lanɡuaɡe because when they used it before it was all in fun? At some point, protestinɡ on behalf of a leftist (dictator) becomes protestinɡ on behalf of a (leftist) dictator. Freedom of speech is contextual. One does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater. One does not have the freedom to advocate the initiation of violence, or support for a dictator who uses violence. Once your man in office starts seizinɡ people's property and throwinɡ them in jail if they resist, you are on the dictator's side in a civil war. This is not a ɡame. This country was close to civil war in 2000 when ɡore tried to steal the election, and it isn't very far from civil war now. People who take words seriously and who object to calls for violence aɡainst the rich or whomever are not the ones who need to take it easy. It is people who call for revolution who need to learn the danɡer of the objects they are playinɡ with.

What, exactly, are you going on about?

My point is that, by and large, most leftists are not psychopaths drooling about the coming revolution. They are typically well-intentioned people, usually rational in other areas of their life, who believe in dangerous nonsense.

Yes, very, very, dangerous nonsense, dangerous to themselves in the foremost. I assume what I said was absolutely clear.

How were we close to a civil war in 2000? Hell, how are we close to a civil war now?

Barack Obama becoming president is mostly the fault of conservatives, you know. He wouldn't have had a chance at the oval office if George W Bush's administration hadn't so thoroughly linked capitalism with fiscal irresponsibility in the public mind in the first place. And the fact that blowhards like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh represent the modern Republican party doesn't exactly help, either.

Do know what the average American layman thinks now? He thinks that it is the fault of "unregulated capitalism" that the economy is tanking. Hell, Alan Greenspan even said as much. So, most people now associate capitalism with immorality, fiscal irresponsibility, Enron, and George W Bush, and you expect them NOT to support Barack Obama?

Civil war is not a matter of mere disagreement on issues, civil war is a failure of legitimacy, such as can result from such things as stealing an election. There is a reason why the party out of power is called the loyal opposition. Once the fairness of elections is no longer believed in, violence in the streets is just an accident away. Look at Iran, look at contested elections everywhere. America is no different. We were one supreme court decision and less than a week away from violent demonstrations in 2000. You are too young to know the reality of riots. They have happened here before, and if they happen here again for the wrong reason the result could be catastrophic.

Don't you mean civil chaos?

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GAH

How do you delete posts now?

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

That's no problem. Why don't we put your family among the next 3,000 or so? That "probably" of yours includes this possibility since it is not a "definitely." (btw - That 3,000 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too low.)

Since it would be your family among the families you are brushing off with such indifference, how would that feel? A move in the direction of a better world?

Better for whom?

The murdered innocent people?

Your murdered family members?

You show you know nothing of the brutal military dictatorships they had in South America. I lived under one. If the left rose there, it was in defiance of an enormous injustice, not because people fell in love with Karl Marx. Latins don't care much for him or his ideas.

You asked how we get to the kind of world I mentioned. I already said it, but I will say it again. Brazil is doing an excellent job of moving in the right direction without murdering its own citizens over ideology. Brazil has a far better economy than Chile (although it is much bigger). In some parameters Chile does better, especially since it is now so heavily dependent of foreign trade, but there is no real comparison between the two. Brazil is a giant and Chile is normal size.

It was not necessary for Pinochet to do what he did. The other Latin American countries that are doing relatively well prove that. He knew what he was doing and it was out of spite and hatred, not out of love for his people.

I find it odd for people of any stripe to preach murder of citizens (including innocent ones) over ideology as a good thing.

It's not a good thing.

Michael

Michael,

Thank you.

I really mean that.

You know, reading this thread, I'm reminded of the policies police agencies have when they require their officers to carry tasers. Every officer, before he gets to carry one around with him, has to first get tasered himself. Not a day goes by that I don't appreciate the wisdom of that policy more and more.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted and Matus:

The entire argument against my judgment of Pinochet as pure evil seems to be that what happened in Chile was preferable to the alternative of communism. Perhaps, but this does not make Pinochet any less of an evil scumbag.

In fact, it makes him the least evil of all available avenues. Perhaps you say? was it or was it not preferable to that kind of communism that had risen every where else and killed millions? And if it was preferable then, was it good that it occurred instead that megadeath hole of communism?

If murderer A kills five people every month, and murderer B kills thirty people every month, it is rational to conclude that this former is less dangerous than the latter. It does not mean, however, that he is a good man, let alone some kind of hero of freedom. It is still completely immoral to idolize a murderer or dictator of any kind.

A disingenuous analogy, because you act as though there was some other world where no one needed to be murdered and somehow communists jet let Pinochet take power and lay the foundations for freedom - in opposition to everything they have fought and murdered for. A more proper analogy would be to consider a runaway train, and an operator has control over one switch. On path makes him run over 5 people, the other path makes him run over 50 people. Would that conductor be a good man if he made the train run over only those 5 people?

The Soviet Union sent those trains on runaway courses, plowing over millions and millions of people. It is the only nation in the history of the world that was founded with the explicit principle of taking over every other nation on the planet, and it expended tremendous effort to try to do so.

Here are just a few of the techniques used by this regime on their capitives:

* Deliberate corporal lesions

* Bodily hangings [suspensions]

* Application of electricity

* Mock execution by firing squad

* Sexual aggression and violence

* Witnessing and listening to torture committed on others

* Russian roulette

* Witnessing the execution of other detainees

* Asphyxia

* Exposure to extreme temperatures

Yes I suppose in some perfect world none of this would have been at all necessary, and assuming actions of some sort were required by Pinochet to secure the foundations of freedom, then perhaps he could have just made a resort compound and sequestered suspected communists to that palace, keeping them well fed and well treated, explaining that he disagrees with them but does not advocate murdering them, but sees the world they want as a threat to humanity. Of course, assuming some of them were involved in assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks (standard fare for communist insurgencies) I don't know how good this polite treatment would have worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

Anyone can copy/paste an article. I can find others. So what?

Here's a fact—and I have seen much of this with my own eyes. Nothing on earth is going to blank out the fact that there were brutal military dictatorships all throughout Latin America held in place during the 60's and 70's because the USA was funding them and training their secret police to kill civilians efficiently (training camps were either local or in Panama). And there were things like what they called in Brazil "the Rio-Geneva shuttle" where politicians and high-ranking military people carried suitcases of American dollar bribes and embezzled infrastructure funds from Brazil to Switzerland on a daily basis.

All this had 3 names:

1. The Cold War (stopping the spread of communism even if that meant propping up and supporting bloody dictators).

2. Raw materials for crony American corporations with ultra-cheap labor.

3. Unpayable debts with crony banks (but backed by the USA government up to a point to protect some of the cronies) to fund infrastructure projects carried out by crony American corporations, many of which were left unfinished and junking up the countryside.

There is no way to make the USA the good guy with the rape of Latin America the USA government carried out during a couple of decades or so. It was a relatively good guy before and a relatively good guy after, but during that time the USA screwed up badly. Once the countries started defaulting on their billions in foreign loans, the USA government stopped the heavy-handed crap and things actually started getting better. The American-supported military dictators collapsed because of the debts and normal democracy took root everywhere, all on its own. There are a couple of exceptions like Chavez, but that is all.

You see, there's a small inconvenient fact. Secret police murder people. Even if it is USA trained. In fact, with USA training, the secret police murder folks with greater efficiency. That makes the murdered people's friends and family and neighbors and colleagues really, really mad.

That is the context for the appeal of the left-wing ideology in South America. I know it does not fit the current ideology where crony capitalism is treated as if it were real capitalism and the unwashed masses are duped because they are stupid robots controlled by puppet-master intellectuals and reactionaries, but facts are facts. And this is what you and Michael (Matus) think should be solved by even more murders.

Thank God it didn't work that way except in Chile. And it didn't even need to work that way in Chile. Allende was already killing himself with the economy. He was no Castro or Chavez.

Like I said, South Americans did not love Karl Marx when they turned left. They hated the dictators and hated the USA for supporting the dictators. I am talking about the people in general, not the left-wing intellectuals. The people in general down there actually love the USA, but not during that time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

That's no problem. Why don't we put your family among the next 3,000 or so? Since it would be your family among the families you are brushing off with such indifference, how would that feel? A move in the direction of a better world?

That's an illogical post hoc fallacy. It's like saying "The war in Iraq isnt that bad compared to fighting in WWII, where 1 in 100 are killed in iraq, and 1 in 10 are were killed in WWII" and you say "Oh, tell that to the soldier who was killed!" It's non nonsensical, no soldier KNOWS he is one of the percentage that will be killed. the MOST you can say is "would you fight in a war where 1 in 10 were killed or 1 in 100 were killed?" Similarly, the only analogous scenario you could offer my family would be "would you prefer a system where you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of being killed or a 1 in 100 chance of starving to death?"

My choice is obvious.

And who said anything about indifference? Your refusal to recognize one path as less evil than another, and act on it, would be morally and objectively indistinguishable from indifference.

That "probably" of yours includes this possibility since it is not a "definitely." (btw - That 3,000 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too low.)

evidence?

You show you know nothing of the brutal military dictatorships they had in South America. I lived under one. If the left rose there, it was in defiance of an enormous injustice, not because people fell in love with Karl Marx. Latins don't care much for him or his ideas.

You are absolutely correct, but what difference does that make? I'm glad I know nothing of the brutal military dictatorships in South America, I'm sad anyone ever had to. But it was the Soviet Union that created that situation, the US only responded to in the best ways (or at least tried) in that context. And I understand the strong revulsion many had to the right wing dictatorships, which were often brutal, but regardless of whether leftists were driven to murderous totalitarian communism because they hated the right or loved marx, the result was still the same, murderous totalitarian communism.

Further, unless MichelleR lived in Chile, she also 'knows nothing' of the brutal military dictatorships of south America, at least not anything more than I do in the context of your comment. Yet you do not chide her for having an opinion about what should be done in such a situation with whatever limited options are available - in fact the best we get from both of you is 'eh, it just sucks!!!' yeah it does, but you better make a choice, and make one quick, choosing not to choose does not morally absolve you of the consequences.

Also, to emphasize "I know nothing about..." suggests that I have no right to speak on things or have opinions about things which I have not directly experienced. This is hogwash. I do not need to actually get an abortion in order to have an opinion on it's moral stature, nor kill a mean to have an opinion on the morality of that. That is not to say you might have better things to say on the topic, or a more informed opinion, having lived in such a situation, but it gives you no right to demand (at least implicitly) everyone else shut up about it.

You asked how we get to the kind of world I mentioned. I already said it, but I will say it again. Brazil is doing an excellent job of moving in the right direction without murdering its own citizens over ideology.

Great. Good for Brazil. Of course that's much easier to do in a world without global expansionistic murderous communistic superpower Soviet Union.

Brazil has a far better economy than Chile (although it is much bigger). In some parameters Chile does better, especially since it is now so heavily dependent of foreign trade, but there is no real comparison between the two. Brazil is a giant and Chile is normal size.

Chile has a GDP per capita that is 50% higher than Brazil's. Brazil's violent crime rate is almost 10 times higher than Chile's, in fact, Chile has the lowest violent crime rate in South America.

Brazil has instituted numerous idiotic socialist reforms over the past few decades, for one, they banned imports of computer technology for about 8 years, which is an eon in computer terms, and they have not yet recovered. This was a pathetic attempt to bolster their domestic computer manufacturing industry. So I wonder, in a nation of 170 million people, how many people have died because good computers and software were not available?

It was not necessary for Pinochet to do what he did.

There is no way for you to know that. Maybe if he didn't, Allende would have secured power with the help of Cuba and the USSR, and instituted a Pol Pot like national murder epidemic. Maybe if he did not crack down hard on suspected communists, they would have succeeded in many more murderous terrorist attacks and directed political assassinations (this was their tactic in South Vietnam, executing people merely because they *thought* they might become intellectual opposition to Communism) Unfortunately for Pinochet and the people who lived in the cold war, they had to make these judgement calls without the benefit of your crystal ball.

The other Latin American countries that are doing relatively well prove that. He knew what he was doing and it was out of spite and hatred, not out of love for his people.

With disgustingly poor economies and murderously high violent crime rates, I don't know if I can agree with your sentiment.

I find it odd for people of any stripe to preach murder of citizens (including innocent ones) over ideology as a good thing.

It's not a good thing.

Michael

Who is preaching the MURDER OF INNOCENTS is *good*? This is an insulting and disgusting mis-interpretation of my comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is preaching the MURDER OF INNOCENTS is *good*? This is an insulting and disgusting mis-interpretation of my comments.

Michael,

I am glad you feel that way. So take a good hard look at your rhetoric because that is precisely the message that comes through. Especially when you tell me what I think, and that the lesser of two evils is actually a good so as not to fall off into cynicism or whatever.

If you feel insulted by people receiving the message you give off, maybe it would be a good time to find a clearer form of expressing what you mean. I'm not the only one who gets that message from you.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the context for the appeal of the left-wing ideology in South America. I know it does not fit the current ideology where crony capitalism is treated as if it were real capitalism and the unwashed masses are duped because they are stupid robots controlled by puppet-master intellectuals and reactionaries, but facts are facts. And this is what you and Michael (Matus) think should be solved by even more murders.

I can't even begin to vocalize my disgust at such a comment ... and I can't fathom how you can take my position in this thread, let alone that combined with the regular interactions we've had, to suggest, for Christs sake, that I am ADVOCATING MURDERS. This is utterly absurd. It would be decent of you to extend the simple respect and courtesy of a rational human being to me, and not immediately label me a callous murderer. I no more advocate murder than the citizens in the US during WWII advocated 'murder' merely by supporting the US involvement in that war, a war of self defense (which the Cold War was also)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is preaching the MURDER OF INNOCENTS is *good*? This is an insulting and disgusting mis-interpretation of my comments.

Michael,

I am glad you feel that way. So take a good hard look at your rhetoric because that is precisely the message that comes through. Especially when you tell me what I think.

If you feel insulted by people receiving the message you give off, maybe it would be a good time to find a clearer form of expressing what you mean. I'm not the only one who gets that message from you.

Michael

This interpretation is borne only of an inherent contradiction in your values.

And your language is deliberately twisting the point of contention here. I do not feel insulted by the way you 'receive' the 'message' I 'give off' I am insulted at your either deliberate mis-representation or accidental one with deliberate disregard for my established ethical standards (or perhaps forgotten) on this forum. The error is either in my inaccurately conveying my message, or in your inaccurately 'interpreting it' since i never said that the "MURDER OF INNOCENTS" was "GOOD" Nor even remotely IMPLIED such a thing, then you are not 'receiving' my message, but instead are inferring something not ever implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Good. (Our posts crossed.)

Now take a good hard look at phrases like "comparable evil" and how you brush off one as almost inconsequential. And how you speculate at all the evil monsters in Chile, the ones you admit you know nothing about. Etc., etc., etc.

If you don't want to say murdering them was good, and the innocents was merely collateral damage to that good, you should not imply it so strongly.

btw - The Soviet government was not responsible for the military dictatorships in South America. The South Americans were.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This interpretation is borne only of an inherent contradiction in your values.

Michael,

There is no contradiction in my values.

I have seen attitudes like what you express, with the full dose of ignorance of events and culture you yourself admit, keep Americans blind to what their government has been doing in South America. This kind of thinking makes it easy to pass out pompous opinions about what is better for South Americans than what the South Americans know for themselves.

And killing a few thousand of them? Who cares? Of course it's evil but it's mostly a numbers game to fit ideologies. It's not really real people.

I get irritated by that. I have seen the damage it causes.

If you want to discuss contradiction in values, would you let a person overhaul an expensive motorcycle if he said he knew nothing about motorcycles? And especially if he said the real problem with motorcycles is that they don't have 4 wheels?

You wouldn't. Yet you treat South America that way. Especially when you defend scum like Pinochet. If you want to defend a Chilean leader, defend someone like Aylwin.

Being outraged at the execution of thousands of civilians, many in a soccer stadium, is not a "semantics game."

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted and Matus:

The entire argument against my judgment of Pinochet as pure evil seems to be that what happened in Chile was preferable to the alternative of communism. Perhaps, but this does not make Pinochet any less of an evil scumbag.

In fact, it makes him the least evil of all available avenues. Perhaps you say? was it or was it not preferable to that kind of communism that had risen every where else and killed millions? And if it was preferable then, was it good that it occurred instead that megadeath hole of communism?

If murderer A kills five people every month, and murderer B kills thirty people every month, it is rational to conclude that this former is less dangerous than the latter. It does not mean, however, that he is a good man, let alone some kind of hero of freedom. It is still completely immoral to idolize a murderer or dictator of any kind.

A disingenuous analogy, because you act as though there was some other world where no one needed to be murdered and somehow communists jet let Pinochet take power and lay the foundations for freedom - in opposition to everything they have fought and murdered for. A more proper analogy would be to consider a runaway train, and an operator has control over one switch. On path makes him run over 5 people, the other path makes him run over 50 people. Would that conductor be a good man if he made the train run over only those 5 people?

The Soviet Union sent those trains on runaway courses, plowing over millions and millions of people. It is the only nation in the history of the world that was founded with the explicit principle of taking over every other nation on the planet, and it expended tremendous effort to try to do so.

Here are just a few of the techniques used by this regime on their capitives:

* Deliberate corporal lesions

* Bodily hangings [suspensions]

* Application of electricity

* Mock execution by firing squad

* Sexual aggression and violence

* Witnessing and listening to torture committed on others

* Russian roulette

* Witnessing the execution of other detainees

* Asphyxia

* Exposure to extreme temperatures

Yes I suppose in some perfect world none of this would have been at all necessary, and assuming actions of some sort were required by Pinochet to secure the foundations of freedom, then perhaps he could have just made a resort compound and sequestered suspected communists to that palace, keeping them well fed and well treated, explaining that he disagrees with them but does not advocate murdering them, but sees the world they want as a threat to humanity. Of course, assuming some of them were involved in assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist attacks (standard fare for communist insurgencies) I don't know how good this polite treatment would have worked.

Talk about being disingenuous! Your post is nothing more than a series of evasions, strawmen, and false dichotomies.

I said perhaps, because, quite frankly, it is anyone's guess how much worse it would have been had the communists obtained power. I don't know, and, unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to know. Most likely it would have been a much worse situation.

Your train scenario is rubbish. Pinochet was not some innocent fellow who had to make some rough choices in order to avert the greater disaster. Reality did not compel him or his Junta to sanction or commit the kinds of atrocities that were sanctioned and committed.

I mean, really, please explain to me how torturing 30,000+ people serves the cause of freedom. How does playing Russian Roulette with an inmate stave off communism?

You end this post with a false dichotomy. A rather patronizing one at that: apparently we can either treat political opponents (though, again, more innocents than socialists were tortured) like VIP guests, or we can subject them to pointless and cruel torture exercises designed for no other reason than to force people to say what they want them to say. Torture, after all, is a notoriously unreliable way to get real information from a person. Torture a person enough and you can make him confess to anything. Although I should have said 'to delight the sadistic fancies of the torturers' as well. After all, they were burning people alive in the streets, and electrocuting them to death in their state torture centers. I'm curious as to how those methods in particular served freedom.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Good. (Our posts crossed.)

Now take a good hard look at phrases like "comparable evil" and how you brush off one as almost inconsequential. And how you speculate at all the evil monsters in Chile, the ones you admit you know nothing about. Etc., etc., etc.

I admit to not having 1st hand knowledge about living in a military dictatorship, which was apparently your prerequisite for speaking at all on the morality of military dictatorships. I did not admit to knowing nothing about Pinochet, Chile, or the Cold War and US Involvement in other nations during that time - in fact I know quite alot about all of them.

If you don't want to say murdering them was good, and the innocents was merely collateral damage to that good, you should not imply it so strongly.

again, you infer what was not implied. Murdering innocent people is not ever good and I never said nor implied it was. Fighting battles against the enemies of proper rational values *is always* good. Some battles, in some circumstances, have 'collateral damage' that does not mean the battle is unjust, as long as the efforts to contain collateral damage are proper withing that historical context. Other people dying in the course of a battle is not MURDER, to suggest it is (as discussed in the "Objectivist Death Cult thread" - is a great philosophical corruption - and if enacted literally, no war which has promulgated Freedom would have ever been fought or won.

btw - The Soviet government was not responsible for the military dictatorships in South America. The South Americans were.

And you say I know nothing about such things? Absent the Soviet Union - there would have been NO serious marxist presence anywhere in the world. The Soviet Union had a great deal to do with EVERY communist nation in the world, and every communist insurgency in the world. Those military dictatorships, as murderous and shitty as they often were, often were the only possible rational manner for the US to contain and combat communism. I don't hear you or MichelleR condemning Sigmen Rhee, who was probably far more vicious of a person than Pinochet was. Why not? Those military dictatorships were often the only way to prevent a communist take over, because the standard operating procedure of the Soviet Union and all the communist insurgencies it sponsored - was to assassinate political opponents or merely people who they thought may become political opponents some day. Fledgeling democracies were the prime target of communist expansionism because of their volatile nature and lack of rule of law. Sponsoring a 'democracy' would have resulted in another one of those amazing communist votes that have 99.9% turnout and they all 'vote' for the wannabe communist dictator. The Soviet Union often spent half of it's GDP sponsoring wars and revolutions, and the US spent a good portion of it's GDP combating them (8% at it's peak) So to suggest military dictatorships in South America were only the responsibility of South Americans is disingenuous - and very insulting to South Americans. It's no more accurate than saying Vietnam was merely a disagreement between the people of the North and South, instead of a small group of communists funded by the soviet union attempting to conquer and enslave another country. Without the Soviet Union's backing, The Vietnam War would have been a nutcase shouting in the town square that no one paid any attention to.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MichelleR, Talk about being disingenuous! Your post is nothing more than a series of evasions, strawmen, and false dichotomies!

it is anyone's guess how much worse it would have been had the communists obtained power

Right. Because SOMETIMES, oh, like 50% of the time, communist revolutions turn out quite nice? No, Actually, EVERY SINGLE TIME the communist took over a nation MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people were killed. One does not need a crystal ball to determine how a political philosophy which enslaves men might turn out, especially when it had all ready been done dozens of times and killed well over one hundred million people! 3,000 deaths? That is probably how many people Che Guevera PERSONALLY EXECUTED in his communist revolution in Cuba, which, by the way, was the primary sponsor of Allende's efforts. It is probably about how many are executed every year in Cuba now for being 'counter-revolutionaries' Let me ask you, by 1973, how many people had communism killed? There has never been a greater ideological threat to humanity and civilization than communism, nothing is as anti-life anti-reason as communism is. And you're going to sit here and tell me, hey, Maybe Pinochet could have secured power in the threat of a global expansionist communist menace without killing 3,000 people, while simultaneously crying no one knows what would have happened? How do YOU know he could have done that? Pinochet's defeat of communism and transition to a free state was the LEAST bloody and MOST PEACEFUL of ANY such effort in the history of the cold war!

I don't know, and, unlike you, I'm not going to pretend to know. Most likely it would have been a much worse situation.

But you seem pretty damn sure about how someone might have come to power and prevented a communist insurgency from winning, somehow, without killing a single suspected communist terrorist?

Your train scenario is rubbish. Pinochet was not some innocent fellow who had to make some rough choices in order to avert the greater disaster.

You miss the point. I was not making the analogy one of choices and consequences, because you hold Pinochet's actions up against a mystical other world divination of some perfect peaceful transition into a free state, even though this has never happened, not once, ever, in the entire history of human civilization. Oh, but PINOCHET! He's the incarnation of EVIL! Even though Chile's defeat of communism and rise to prosperity is perhaps the least bloody one ever.

Reality did not compel him or his Junta to sanction or commit the kinds of atrocities that were sanctioned and committed.

I mean, really, please explain to me how torturing 30,000+ people serves the cause of freedom. How does playing Russian Roulette with an inmate stave off communism?

Let's turn that question around on you in the same manner, lets say that there was no possible way to secure a free state without torturing 30,000 people, and that perhaps in a metaphysical sense this was the only possible way for chile to today be a free wealthy nation. It's obvious that in any state it's just and proper to sequester and interrogate treasonous offenders. What kinds of interrogation methods are justified in your opinion? If Pinochet had only killed 300 people, and interrogated and tortured 3,000, would that be more 'reasonable' to you? 30 and 300? You're question is just as irrational a claim to omniscience. I sure as hell hope there was a way for Pinochet - or any person in any similiar situation - to lay the foundations for a free nation without spilling a single drop of blood. But IS there?

You end this post with a false dichotomy. A rather patronizing one at that: apparently we can either treat political opponents (though, again, more innocents than socialists were tortured) like VIP guests, or we can subject them to pointless and cruel torture exercises designed for no other reason than to force people to say what they want them to say. Torture, after all, is a notoriously unreliable way to get real information from a person. Torture a person enough and you can make him confess to anything. Although I should have said 'to delight the sadistic fancies of the torturers' as well. After all, they were burning people alive in the streets, and electrocuting them to death in their state torture centers. I'm curious as to how those methods in particular served freedom.

Oh, right, they can lock them up, blast them with loud annoying music...that seems to be about it, and I'm sure loud annoying music will be deemed cruel and unusual soon too. But *I* used a false dichotomy? Actually there are fundamentally only three ways to get information from people, you ask them politely, bribe them, or force them. Tell me how many communist terrorists would have answered questions if asked politely? Should Pinochet have offered every suspected terrorist a Villa on the beach? And actually done properly, torture is a very accurate way of getting information, in Ancient Rome, testimony was NOT considered valid UNLESS it was the result of torture. Israel, routinely faced with 'ticking time bomb' type life and death situations, does a good job of this with a heavily regulated system integrated into their justice system, where evidence must be presented proving the suspect has the information, and a specific set of procedures are followed, much like your typical sentencing procedures in the US. They don't hand the guy over to someone and say 'go at it'

Let me ask you this, say you have a pedophile serial killer, he's killed a dozen kids, he now in custody and all evidence proves his guilt beyond any doubt and he confesses to the crimes. However, a 13th kid is still missing, and is known to be alive, but is buried somewhere running out of air. He won't say where she is unless he's guaranteed freedom and a villa on beach. Torturing this man would be proper and just if handled correctly, and would in fact serve freedom and justice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

Anyone can copy/paste an article. I can find others. So what?

Jesus Christ, Michael. I thought maybe some facts would be of interest in this thread. I intend to post the relevant parts of the Pinochet article, but it is longer and has much more editing needed so I didn't have time to do it last night.

Given your "doth protest too much"response, I would say that you yourself know how relevant this information is.

Allende was a perfidious communist. He was not elected by a majority (although you always hear how he was elected) he signed and then violated an oath to respect the constitution, he was denounced by the congress and the supreme court, he nationalized the banks, the copper industry, and all property above 80 acres. The man was a dictator. But notice that while that word is used in the article on Pinochet it is not used in this article. The bottom line is that this monster deserved to be overthrown. Now, how he was overthrown was not ideal. But I don't think anyone here is arguing that it was.

The scary thing is the parallels between Allende, Chavez and Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those military dictatorships were often the only way to prevent a communist take over, because the standard operating procedure of the Soviet Union and all the communist insurgencies it sponsored - was to assassinate political opponents or merely people who they thought may become political opponents some day.

Michael,

With all due respect, this is pure horse crap. Military dictatorships in South America where the only way for the military command to plunder its own citizens. That's the only thing they cared about. Left or right, that's how it always has been down there since colonial days.

Yes, there was communist presence, but South America was not like what it was in Russia during the rule of the Romanovs.

There are two things you are not taking into account in your analysis of South America:

1. Almost all of the military takeovers took place with a minimum of violence. The slaughter of the citizens happened after military power was consolidated and the secret police was up an running.

2. The vast majority of the people killed and tortured were college students and teachers. Not philosophy stuff, either. Engineering. Math. These things. The military killed off and tortured newly educated people and teachers not because these kids were indoctrinated. Of course they had contact with left ideas, but they basically wanted to progress in life just like we do.

There is an attitude in South America I have never seen an American up here really grok unless that person has been down there or comes from there. The ruling class is extremely paternalistic and they have a prejudice that the population must be uneducated in order to exist in peace (i.e., read this as "be ruled in peace"). So for years they offered poor education and talented teachers had a way of losing interest in working.

This last, incidentally, is one of the reasons communism didn't really stand a chance down there. You need to study to learn it. And study was not part of the Latin unwashed masses culture. This was nurtured by those in power, irrespective of who they were, left or right.

Before you start making excuses for scum like Pinochet, you should get a handle on who he really was and why he did what he did. It had very little to do with your romantic idealization of him and his cronies being the only cure for communism. He used that image as a pretext.

In fact, if you want to know the truth, I believe the Chicago School was invited to go to Chile as a ruse to fool the masses with. I don't think Pinochet had a clue about free markets and all that stuff. The Chilean people were scared by what they saw with Allende (everyone had money and there was nothing to buy). So Pinochet gave people the opposite as a smokescreen so he and his cronies could plunder and torture and murder in relative peace. The fact that the economy started working well was an unintended benefit that I believe caught him by surprise. He only needed it to work well enough to plunder, not well enough to challenge his authority.

(btw - I haven't said anything about Rhee because I don't know anything about him.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now