Piffle. You’re talking to the people who took on Grenada, with its crack commando Cuban bulldozer drivers, with a scant 30,000 to 1 military advantage! And then took on the dreaded military machine of Panama!
PS: What do you call a boatload of sheep from the Falklands headed for London? War brides!
And those two words are in quotes why?
His legacy? Besides the one of being a dictator and being a delay of what Chile is today, he will be remembered as a crook:
Also among his shameful legacy is the deep division of catholics in Chile today, he was helped by many important members of the catholic church in Chile when he put on a show of a “great man of faith” all these years. However many other good Catholics opposed him.
Captain Amazing: The Christian Democrats that foolishly approved that in the Chamber of Deputies just before the coup, were sorry for that later.
Renob: Chile in the 80’s seems like a better choice? :dubious: In the 80’s the dictator had to face unrest for a recession and massive protests were followed by more repression and then that caused a wave of bombings in major cities. Rising popular unrest and continued economic deterioration led Pinochet to reimpose a state of siege in November 1984, by then the Christian Democrats (Despised by Pinochet even though they gave him cover in the coup) and even the Church had enough of Mr “Catholicism was the cornerstone of the new Chile” Pinochet. It seems to me the loss of that block of support was enough to tell Pinocchio that the gig was up. When then he lost the plebiscite he realized he would had committed suicide if he had not stepped down.
And I think also his “investments” would had been found sooner.
‘detained’ was in quotes because he was simply not permitted to leave the country, although I doubt anyone would really have stopped him if he had taken a cab to Heathrow.
‘judge’ was me being cautious, I’m not totally familiar with the Spanish legal system, but I know enough about it to make me very wary. I was tempted to use the word magistrate or prosecutor - but neither quite fit.
Nah - we call them kebabs :-}
“not so much as a leaf moved in Chile without my consent”
The Socialist Party of Chile was a Marxist-Leninist party that split off from the Communists after the latter became Stalinist.
From the “Founding Principles” of the party:
Then I don’t get why Allende originally won representing a coalition of his own Socialist party together with Communists.
And that is because it seems that earlier the Socialist party he founded was at odds with the Soviet Union.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDallende.htm
At the very end, Allende refused the aid of the communists in part because it would lead to more bloodshed and in part because they did not like each other.
Perhaps for the same reason the ANC has been governing South Africa in coalition with the Communists since 1994. Strainge bedfellows, you know?
I know, it was mostly a rhetorical line. Speaking of strange, I always got a kick by noticing the right wingers in the USA ignored that the coalition of parties that defeated the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 80’s had the communists as one of their members.
Wow, his opponent’s argument must have really…um…sucked. 
Believe it or not, that was far from the stupidest comment in the Freeper thread.
What don’t you understand? You had two Marxist-Leninist parties in Chile…the Communist Party, which was a party that was controlled by the Soviet Union, and the Socialist Party, Allende’s party, which was, like your link says, and like you quoted, “a Marxist organization that was opposed to the Soviet Union influenced Communist Party.” The Socialist party split off from the Communists in 1933, because it was Trotskyist, and the Communists were Stalinists. So, what exactly are we arguing about here?
Well hey-wasn’t Tito one of our allies in the Balkans?
That there was a difference like **BrainGlutton ** said. Negating that division was crucial for the propaganda of that day. The division did appear as one of the reasons why Allende failed to offer a concerted effort against the coup. The negation of that division today sounds silly.
I didn’t say there wasn’t a difference…I said that Allende’s party was a communist, not a “democratic socialist” one. They weren’t like the Social Democrats of Germany, or the Socialists of France, or the Labour party of England…they were a Trotskyite party that believed in Marxist-Leninism.
Again-SO WHAT?
That justified what went on?
It maybe justified Allende’s overthrow. It probably didn’t justify a lot of Pinochet’s later violations of civil and human rights. In other words:
Allende=bad guy
Pinochet=bad guy.
Since it did not bring democracy for the ones that approved the coup in congress the answer is no.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. And as other doper concluded in a past thread: the only thing it showed was that democracy is not for sissies.
By allowing more time to pass it was very likely Allende would have lost -a very likely to come- early election.
In 2000 I opposed a coup by the extreme left in Ecuador (regardless if it was justified there, the fact remains it was not a democratic move). Influence from the USA was decisive in convincing the military that supported the coup(!) to back down, and so the left and the natives pulled back to work for a democratic solution when it was clear a deal had been made. (It helped that virtually no shots were fired)
Pinochet and the USA decided somehow to believe democracy was a stupid path to follow in 1973.
I’d amend that to:
Allende = not “good”; BUT how potentially bad will never make it past speculation. Old-school Trostskyite revolutionary. Unable to maintain order and keep his appointees in line, or hold together the very constitutional system he was supposed to lead because he insisted on pushing his agenda w/o compromise even though his was a minority-coalition government. Was in process of developing parallell revolutionary institutions to end-run around legal and procedural limitations. BUT was elected democratically and likely could have been defeated democratically had the opposition not panicked and sought a Deus-ex-machina way to assure that the commies would not take over.
Pinochet = not “good”; demonstrably very bad and there are the dead bodies to prove it. Reactionary rightist traditionalist authoritarian. Claimed “nothing moves in Chile without my knowledge”, tore apart the constitutional order he was supposed to be saving; ran right through any institutional legal and procedural limitations at gunpoint and “took care” of anyone in opposition. DID carry out concerted campaign of internal and external repression, “disappearances”, state terror, outright murder, military non-submission to lawful civilian authority. Allowed removal only on his terms under “golden Parachute” of special provisions to grant impunity, immunity, continued positions and authorities, continuance of policies even under succeeding governments, and holding dubious financial gains, and only AFTER failing to gain support for making his rule permanent.
A bad President who’s (IYO) ruining your country is one thing; a dictator who is going around “disappearing” dissenters and opponents is a whole other order of magnitude.