9/11-1973 darkness falls over Chile

[Kaftan Barlast]

A tragedy that has unfortunently largely been overshadowed by the al-quaida attacks.

 

 

 

31 years ago, the Democraticly elected President Allende was overthrown by General Augusto Pinochets junta leading to a 17year long dictatorship of murder, repression, persecutions, war, starvation and countless other horrors that claimed the lives of tens of thousands and shattered the lives of many more.

 

 

 

 

remember that.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Okay.

[mkreku]

Read more about the Chile coup here: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy/display_...icle=1973_chile

 

One huge black dot in the history of american foreign politics.

[Monte Carlo]

Allende was a hard-line socialist who had every intention of abandoning democracy in Chile and replacing it with a Soviet-style regime. The Nixon administration wasn't going to tolerate Chile and Cuba going Red, and I can't say I blame them. They couldn't invade, not with the Vietnam imbroglio. No, they would use a home-grown proxy.

 

If you are going to discuss and consider history, try putting yourself in the shoes of the protagonists....enter the forces of reaction. Pinochet thought he was a patriot rescuing his country from Communism. Allende would have eventually ushered in a political regime just as repugnant, but the Left generally hear/ see/ speak no evil when a totalitarian regime is from the left-wing end of the spectrum.

 

Look at Stalin. Murdered millions. Made Hitler look like an amateur. Yet kids wear "CCCP" tee-shirts, or pins with Lenin's head on. I find them as offensive as swastika vests or Eichman badges, personally.

 

The winners write history, or, in the "post historical" world, the Media/ Political complex that is made up of overwhelmingly urban liberals.

 

Cheers

MC

[mkreku]

Allende was a hard-line socialist who had every intention of abandoning democracy in Chile and replacing it with a Soviet-style regime. The Nixon administration wasn't going to tolerate Chile and Cuba going Red, and I can't say I blame them. They couldn't invade, not with the Vietnam imbroglio. No, they would use a home-grown proxy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My history books tell me that Allende was a socialist leader that wanted to take back the land of Chile from huge American corporations that used the Chilean people practically as slaves on their farms. He was going to take back the land and divide it evenly to the farmers. Where did you read about him being a communist (if that's what you mean by "Soviet-style regime")? And please don't confuse an ideology with a madman. Stalin was a madman and no system in the world could have stopped him. Blaming it on communism is too easy and shallow.

[Product of the Cosmos]

wow I did even know aout that

[Monte Carlo]

My history books tell me that Allende was a socialist leader that wanted to take back the land of Chile from huge American corporations that used the Chilean people practically as slaves on their farms.

 

Who wrote your history book? Why don't you question it, doubt it's veracity, test it's sources, read an alternative point of view?

 

He was going to take back the land and divide it evenly to the farmers.

 

Uh, that is communism. You say "take back the land" and I say "sieze property unlawfully from it's legitimate owners."

 

Communists say "progressive elements" and I say "terrorists". Communists say "Vanguard of the Proletariat" and I say unionised bully-boys. Communists say "redistribution of wealth" and I say "theft". See where this is going?

 

Where did you read about him being a communist (if that's what you mean by "Soviet-style regime")?

 

Quite clearly I read it in a history book rather more accurate than the one you read. Ha ha ha. 70's Latin American socialism, if anything, was even more red-blooded than centralized soviet communism, actually. Death squads ahoy! Oh, sorry, I suppose in your history books only right-wing juntas have death squads, right?

 

And please don't confuse an ideology with a madman. Stalin was a madman and no system in the world could have stopped him.

 

Why is is that madmen so often seem to conveniently be part of extremist ideological cults of both left and right? To try to separate Stalin's terror from Russian communism would be disingenious.

 

Blaming it on communism is too easy and shallow.

 

No, it definitely isn't. Is blaming the Holocaust on the NSDAP shallow? Is blaming Year Zero on the Khmer Rouge shallow? Heck, is blaming 9/11 on AQ shallow? I don't think so.

 

I was around the last time "The Kids" got this upset about the world. It's OK, it's cool. Just try to, occasionally, look beyond your furious self-righteousness. Then ,when it's all over you won't feel like a manipulated jerk.

 

Cheers

MC

[mkreku]

He was going to take back the land and divide it evenly to the farmers.

 

Uh, that is communism. You say "take back the land" and I say "sieze property unlawfully from it's legitimate owners."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Again. Although dividing the land among the people might have been a tool used by some communists to accomplish the classless society, it is certainly not communism in itself. Communism is just an idea of creating a society where everyone is each others equal. You took Stalin as an example. Well, Stalin is the worst example of "communism" you could imagine, since he was just a dictator pretending to lead a communist society. There has never been a real communist society! One of the goals of communism is total freedom for the individual, but history has shown that such has never been the case in reality. In fact, communism has proven itself to be one of the most disastrous ideologies for its people. Personally I think the problem with an ideology like that is that it assumes that all men/women want the same thing. Obviously some people are never happy unless they have lots more than their neighbour and that's what makes the communistic system fail. It seems to be too easy to abuse for someone without moral barriers.

 

Allende was a socialistic leader, and if you can't see the difference betwen him and the dictator Stalin, then there's really no point in continuing this discussion.

 

Maybe you need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

Quite clearly I read it in a history book rather more accurate than the one you read. Ha ha ha. 70's Latin American socialism, if anything, was even more red-blooded than centralized soviet communism, actually. Death squads ahoy! Oh, sorry, I suppose in your history books only right-wing juntas have death squads, right?

Speaking of death squads, maybe you need to read this (about the guy who eventually, with the help of the US, overthrew Allende):

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

[J.E. Sawyer]

I find them as offensive as swastika vests or Eichman badges, personally.

Maybe Eichmann fans just really like prompt trains.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Allende was not some totalitarian Stalinist, he was a democratic socialist that wanted the resources of his country to be used in the gain of the people, and not to be sold out cheaply to foreign companies. To compare Allende with Stalin is like comparing Churchill and Hitler.

 

 

And there is nothing, NOTHING that can ever excuse the actions of Nixons goverment and the CIA in this matter.

[Monte Carlo]

Allende was not some totalitarian Stalinist, he was a democratic socialist

 

OXYMORON ALERT!!!

[taks]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Again. Although dividing the land among the people might have been a tool used by some communists to accomplish the classless society, it is certainly not communism in itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

he's not wrong at all. MC did not equate communism with the land grab measure. he did the contrary. land division is a practice of communism. certainly no true communism has ever existed, but just as certainly it cannot exist in anything other than an ideal state. variations on a theme are all that have existed in practice, and those are equally fallible.

 

taks

[Monte Carlo]

The problem is, Mark, that the kid's going through his fire and brimstone lefty phase. It'll pass. He's only addressing the points I make that he's comfortable with and ignoring the others.

 

Please, address the salient points, don't tell me I'm "wrong" so blithely and get with the programme. The intellectually lazy, left-wing, reflex anti-Americanism on this little corner of the forum is like a child's sandpit full of shiny but, ultimately, pointless objects.

 

If you can't at least try to see the argument from the opposing point of view (I can clearly understand, with some sympathy, Allende's position in the early 70's) then you've got no chance of cogently making your own.

[taks]

The problem is, Mark, that the kid's going through his fire and brimstone lefty phase. It'll pass. He's only addressing the points I make that he's comfortable with and ignoring the others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i realize that, but it's also prudent to point out flaws in such arguments.

 

even i was left in college... *shudder*. i did NOT ever think that communism was workable ideal. not so much because of the obvious evidence to the contrary in the world, but just from a common sense standpoint of "now how can we guarantee everybody is on board with this?" which, oddly enough, isn't even the real problem with the system.

 

taks

[Weiser_Cain]

*watches anti-american debate with some interest*

[taks]

not really anti-american, yet... most discussions on communism end up there, however.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

Allende was not some totalitarian Stalinist, he was a democratic socialist

 

OXYMORON ALERT!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Are you saying Socialism cannot be Democratic?

 

 

 

 

and no, this is not an anti-american thread.

[taks]

Are you saying Socialism cannot be Democratic?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not truly, no. in the end, socialism requires a government dictating what it is the people need. while on the surface said governmental leaders may be elected democratically, they are still performing the will of the state, not the will of the people comprising the state.

 

taks

[Dakoth]

Hence the problem with most governments, it is not the ideals the governmets were founded on but the people who impliment thenm. Need people be reminded America is not a true democracy.

[deganawida]

Need people be reminded America is not a true democracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It was never intended to be. It was meant to be, depending on the name one prefers, either a Federal Republic or Constitutional Republic.

[taks]

most don't realize that, either. the problems of a pure democracy are just as bad as those of any other ideal system.

 

taks

[deganawida]

Yup, taks, pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

[taks]

yup, once the mob realizes it can vote itself the keys to the treasury, it will. it will bankrupt itself shortly thereafter.

 

taks

[Dakoth]

most don't realize that, either.  the problems of a pure democracy are just as bad as those of any other ideal system.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly pure democracy equals majority rules, period. Anyone can lead if the majority of the people think it should be that way. The problem comes in if you are in the minority on a consistent basis, your ideals are never given creedence.

[deganawida]

Who was it who originally postulated that theory? I forget the work that it first appears in, but wasn't it an early 20th century historical text?