Better an unelected non-communist government than an elected communist one. As bad as Pinochet was, he eventually stepped down peacefully. I’ll never believe that Allende would have.
Makes no sense because the Chilean military would still be there to jump on him (and with justification) if Allende had dared to do so (Provided the USA would had told the Chilean military they were not to move against Allende until the next elections.)
And Pinochet stepped down peacefully because this time outside pressure came from the world and even the United States supported what the State Department called a “real and orderly transition to democracy.”
Pinochet lost the referendum that he thought he was going to win. And he made efforts to nullify the referendum but his own army turned their backs to him (no doubt the word from up high north was that the Chilean military was not going to continue getting their gravy)
Pinochet stepped down because his plans to nullify the will of the people failed, but he had a sweet deal anyhow, he still kept his powerful position as commander of the Chilean armed forces, and then in an attempt to avoid prosecutions got the title of Senador Vitalica (Senator for Life).
A military dictator relinquished power, but an elected leader would not have done so? Are you serious?
Yup, 'Mericans sure do love that democracy stuff.
CMC fnord!
Not an elected leader who’s a Communist, especially not in the 70s. Even were he so inclined, Moscow wouldn’t have let him. But it’s unlikely he would have been so inclined. Communism is incompatible with democracy.
I think we might have said something about that.
Even letting that stand, military dictatorships aren’t?
They are, but when you’re in that sort of situation, you’re in a lesser of two evils situation, and a military dictatorship is a lesser evil than a Communist state.
It would be if you were expecting communist dictatorships that removed democracy.
It was more complicated in Latin America and Cuba was mostly an exception, many of the leftists governments in Latin America did have other more moderated elements and allowed free elections like in Nicaragua. But even the moderated elements in those governments or the ones fighting against the military thugs even with justification were branded communist in the USA and many just used that word to tell themselves how good the US was in supporting the military death squads in Latin America and the destruction of even peaceful opposition groups.
:dubious: Mmmm-hm. So, you would support a coup against Hugo Chavez?
If the people have lost the confidence of the government, the government is justified in overthrowing thier tyranny.
And how would Moscow stop him from doing so?
Speaking as a latin-american I must say:** who the FUCK gave the USA the right to decide what government a country can elect?**
Is it “government of the people, by the people, for the people” or “government of the people(who lives in the USA), by the people (who lives in the USA), for the people (who lives in the USA)”?
Also, a question, if the USA elected a communist for president, would the US Military then have the the right to depose him in a coup?, if your answer is yes, how can you call yourself a believer in democracy?, if your answer is no, isnt it a little bit hypocritical of you?
Frodo ANGRY, FRODO must resist urge to PIT…
If the US had elected Gus Hall president, I certainly hope they would. The military takes an oath to defend the Constitution, after all. And I am a believer in democracy. But the thing is, the Communist party isn’t a democratic party. The Democrats, the Republicans, the Socialists, the Green party, etc are democratic parties and committed to the democratic tradition. The Communists aren’t. They’re a revolutionary party dedicated to overthrowing democracy and capitalism and imposing a command economy and totalitarian dictatorship. So you can’t treat them (or the Nazis…I’d give you the same answer if the US elected a Nazi for president) the way you treat the democratic parties of the left or the right.
So the US army, before the Gus Hall commits any unconstitutional act deposes him just because he is Commie?, and who decides who is a commie and therefore unelectable?.
Also, you didnt answer my other questions
:rolleyes:
Not all communist parties are the same, and keeping the focus on Latin America and Nixon, most of the unified opposition were not communists (specially in Central America). It was just propaganda from the past that insisted the whole lot were communists.
And I would not be surprised that some retrograde communists (that I do not respect) choose to support the socialists that are getting in power in many Latin American nations now. If we had followed the “standards” of the Nixon administration we would we calling them all commies once again.
Well, Gus Hall was pretty explicitly a Communist.
What were your other questions? What gives the US the right to decide what governments other countries have? The US doesn’t have any special right to do that, but the US does have the same right as every other country does to support its friends and hurt its enemies.
Okay, see, here’s the thing. Some Communist Parties propose violent overthrow of the government to put forth their ideas, and some want to enact their policies by getting elected. Killing people is not inherently a tenet of Communism.
So?, I asked if he should be deposed BEFORE he commits unconstitutional acts.
If so, what if i say “X is a communist” and X says i am not, i am a NeoCommunist?,
Who decides if he is a Commie? who decides if any political ideology is ipso facto anticonstitutional?
So basically you are saying that electing a communist political party is asking for a declaration of war from the US?
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, in that the US was more willing to find communists where they weren’t. But the thing is, first of all, pretty much all communist parties were the same. With the exception of the Chinese, the Albanians, and the Yugoslavs, the Eurocommunist movement and a few Maoist parties like Shining Path, the Communist parties around the world accepted Soviet leadership and were Soviet influenced, and backed with Soviet money, resources, and weapons.
Complicating the situation is that the non-Communist leftist groups in Latin America were very often willing to be in a unified opposition with the Communists. In the Chile case, Allende might not have been a Communist himself (although I think he probably was), but his allies were, and what the Popular Unity government did, in terms of actual policy, was what was being advocated by the Chilean Communists (nationalization of industry and turning it over to “workers councils”, land seizure and redistribution.)
It’s also important to remember, in the specific case of Chile, a lot of Allende’s own actions contributed to the unrest and the coup against him. It’s easy to say, “Oh, the unrest was caused by the CIA”, but Allende did act anti-constitutionally, he alienated the Christian Democrats, he politicized the military, he allowed the MIR to run around and act illegally, and he destroyed the Chilean economy and caused runaway inflation and shortages.
As the FAS’s Country Report points out:
Even if said dictatorship is brutal and cruel, and the other is not? Look at what went on in Guatemala in the 1950s? (BTW, the overthrow of the Arbenz government had jackshit to do with it being a “communist” government. Allen Dulles was on the board of the United Fruit Company, and his brother just HAPPENED to be John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State for Ike. You might want to do some research on the UFC, btw.)
And let’s not get into our support of the Somoza dynasty, the military thugs in El Salvador, the Shah of Iran, etc. (Why the HELL do you think the communists were able to get such support from the people in the first place? They probably figured, “hey, can’t be any worse than the alternative!”)
Back to Nixon? Two words: My Lai.