Just in case people are unfamiliar about my reference to the car bomb that killed Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffitt in Washington, here is a link to a story about the conviction of two very high ranking Army officers in the Pinochet regime for this crime by a Chilean court:
If that’s what Lib is trying to say, the analogy is not correct.
Robbery by threats of violence, by three guys armed and ready to go, is considerably more than just a threat to one’s pocketbook.
Let me suggest the clearest, most fundamental reason why Chile and Pinochet recieve attention and Argentina does not recieve as much attention. The degree of international involvement in the original issue.
Argentina’s state corporatist military coup-d’etat did not (to my knowledge, never having seen mention of this) depend on CIA intervention/assistance/interest. It was largely an affair driven by internal issues, although since it was also rightist your conspiracy theory lacks any logical content, but that’s not much of a surprise. Further, the military dictatorship ended up being nobodies’ friend. No real connection to the US or direct US concerns. Ergo, one is likely to hear less of it.
Chile, as we all know, on the other hand, featured close CIA assitance to the coup and cooperation afterwards with an ugly dictatorship which even went so far as to commit assasinations on US soil. In addition US citizens were killed. I imagine some Argentine-Americans probably were killed in Argentina, but the issue really becomes the level of US involvement. Clearly Chilean events are intimately tied with US policy, even US domestic policy. Argentine really are not to this level. So, of course Chile would be reaching your ears in the US media while Argentina less so.
So if december would like to check history against his favorite “leftists conspiracy” obsession, he will find a rational and factually grounded reason why Chile has recieved such attention (and similarly the Sandinistas on the other side of the coin.).
I continue to be astonished by your lack of critical thinking.
Thanks, Coll.
I wonder what December’s reaction would be if I mentioned who signed the CIA order to assist in Allende’s murder . . .
Oh? And how do Marxist rulers coax money out of peoples’ pocketbooks? Charm? Telekinesis? Pay no attention to that army behind the curtain!
Well, we’re not really talking about Marxism here, of course. In the ideal marxist state, everyone shares out of free will and sense of duty.
But generally speaking, I think the soviet-style socialist regimes have preferred the terms “police” or “internal security” to “army.” 
andros-who signed the order?
I might have missed lib’s joke, but I think I have a pretty good guess on who signed the order…
If I’m right, his granddaughter has been having difficulty drinking lately.
If I’m wrong, I’ll refrain from from swinging at my third strike.
Lib, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Allende elected in reasonably fair elections, after several tries? that he was in the democractic tradition? that he was killed by the armed forces because they disagreed with his politics?
good call on not swinging; I don’t know who signed the CIA order but it doesn’t seem likely it was GHWB:
The coup took place in September 1973;
Bush was appointed CIA director in January 1976.
Or was he a higher-up in the CIA before that?
So who was it andros?
Nope, you are correct.
My apologies–I almost made an incorrect assertion. Allende was killed September 11, 1973, while Bush was Chairman of the Republican Party. Bush was named Director of the CIA in 1976, and did not serve in the CIA in any capacity prior to that.
I have eradicated my own ignorance today, thanks in part to Timchik. Gawd, I hate it when I fall prey to my baser human nature.
Piper, you are correct. Allende was elected by popular vote. His Popular Unity party consisted of Socialists, Communists, Radicals, and Christian Democrats. As to the causes of Chile’s problems during his tenure:
(From http://www.britannica.com )