He would have killed tens of millions. History clearly shows this.

It’s a good thing Pinochet killed him in time. A Great Man that Pinochet! While Pinochet only killed thousands and thousands of Chileans, Allende would have killed millions (had Pinochet not killed him first).

No other Latin American Leader can say “that they have done for their country what Pinochet did for his”.

What would have been ‘a good thing’ was for Allende’s regime to have taken its course unaltered by US involvement, of which would have probably lead to either the eventual self destruction of Allende’s government anyway, or, tragically, mass murder of innocent lives on a much larger scale…but we will never know which way history would have took Chile.

In other words, the 3,000 or so innocent people that died under Pinochet is tragic, but history clearly shows that had Allende remained in power, 3,000 innocent deaths would have been but a drop in the bucket to the number of innocent deaths that would have resulted.

I have no rebuttal to this argument. I really just can’t think of anything to say. I’m floored.

You are arguing that the military coup that overthrew the democratic government of Chile was a good thing because Allende (who was murdered by Pinochet) would have been an even worse murderer than Pinochet had he been allowed to live. That is your argument. Did I get that right?

I don’t know what to say.

Allende, in less than three years of assuming power, attacked the press, nationalized a large amount of businesses, and started a shadow army which, btw, produced a lot of violence throughout the period. By 1973, the time of the coup, the countries economic system was in shambles, with desperate women and children banging empty pots as a protest to Allende’s economics. It was Allende’s call for rationing and the nationalization of education that was the tipping point which lead the Supreme Court, the Lower House, the Medical Association, and the Bar Association to all come out strongly against Allende – calling for military intervention.

So does history give us any indication of where a country that attacks the press, nationalizes businesses, starts a shadow army and starts food rationing is headed? Sure it does, and you can look at every other communist regime – including Cuba under Castro – to see exactly what that would have leaded to. Record numbers of death, especially innocent women, children, and farmers, and this only those that die because of the gross inefficiencies of communist central planning – to say nothing of the historically unprecedented numbers that also die in concentration camps, gulags, or under bloody suppression.

In other words, the 3,000 or so innocent people that died under Pinochet is tragic, but history clearly shows that had Allende remained in power, 3,000 innocent deaths would have been but a drop in the bucket to the number of innocent deaths that would have resulted.

In any case, it seems indisputable that when any democratic government is replaced by a military coup, that constitutes a very significant “downgrade” - which was my original point.

Lets not confuse the issue, Allende was about as ‘democratically elected’ as Hitler was, receiving at most 36% of the vote (which means that congress held power over him and made him agree to certain terms of his presidency, of which many he disobeyed). In addition, the military coup was encouraged by the civil society, for it was Chile’s Chamber of Deputies that, less than a month before the coup, passed a resolution calling for military intervention. By the time the coup took place, Chile was already - in no small part due to Allende and his communist policies - in economic and political turmoil, on the brink of a bloody civil war. So for one (not necessarily you, but others) to act as if Allende was as ‘democratically elected’ as Bush was, or that Chile was as peaceful and economically prosperous as the United States is to mislead in a grave way.

The people of Chile certainly didn’t ask for Pinochet as a dictator, but they were loud and clear in wanting Allende removed via the military and replaced by, hopefully, something better.

With that said, I want to make it clear that I don’t believe that the CIA should be, as a general rule, interferring in other countries political affairs, but Chile is not a good example of why the CIA should not be doing so.

Your assertion that Chileans may have preferred Pinochet to Allende is irrelevant if true, and unlikely to be true since they voted for Allende.

In any case, it seems indisputable that when any democratic government is replaced by a military coup, that constitutes a very significant “downgrade” - which was my original point. I’m surprised you would argue otherwise.

I was thinking the same thing True_Liberal. Also noteworthy is that John Kenneth Galbraith, Friedmans long time foe, died a few months ago as well. Go back even further and you have the deaths of Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II.

The end of a dangerous era, I guess. We should be thankful to them that even lefties now generally all agree that communism is a bunch of bullshit.

Though with the recent rise of Islamic radicalism, we seem to be entering a whole new era. I consider GWB to be the Nixon of this new era, and am desperately waiting for the Reagan of it to come along.