Former Chilean dictator Pinochet dies at 91

[JimBob]

That`s not entirely true, the cuban intervention in Chile went farther than the importation of a couple of sugar sacks...

There were some mercenaries and guerilla instructors involved, you know.

And the US sent military advisers, the CIA, weapons, School of the Americas graduates to Chile. The point was that the USSR and Cuba, while friendly to Allende's Chile did not control the government nor act as more than allies, which is more than can be said for the US. So the argument about keeping 'foreign influences out' is flat out wrong.

Do you actually believe that Allende`s people was just going to ship back to Cuba all the weapons, all the ammunitions, all the instructors, etc., should they have lost the plebiscite?

Do you think those would have been free elections?

How do you know he wouldn't. And in that case, had Allende lost the election, the people, with military support, could have legitimately overthrown Allende and put the proper democratic government in office. Thereby making Allende the villain for blocking democracy, as it stands he is the victim because he was the elected president.

[-Praetor-]

Hi y`all

Are you rewriting history there .

I was refering to the 1978 conflict, which thank God didn`t happened. You, in turn, mix a quasi-war that was bound to happen in 1978, with a war that did happened in 1879

Chile attacked , Chile declared war ...over tax on bird excrement .

About the 1879 pacific war, yes, we did declared war to Peru and Bolivia, over the unilateral breach of a treatie made by the latter.

Plz, if you would like to know more about it`s causes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_...Crisis_and_war

Peru honoured its treaty with Bolivia , though it did try negotiation instead , and Argentina wasn't even involved .

Yes, a secret military alliance (a defensive treaty to be precise).

Okey, let`s go back on topic, shall we?

It seems like you have a rather strange concept there.

Well, to be brief, the strict legal positivism was abandoned long ago, and the postulates of Hobbes and Bentham on the matter are now greatly moderated by the influence of some principles coming from the old ius naturalism. That is, you cannot separate completely the moral from the legal norm.

I don`t wanna get you all bored about this, with all this juridic theory, but to be brief, Kelsen`s "Reine Rechtslehre" (Pure Theory of Law) was very citicized after the Second World War, to the point of making it unacceptable on the form that Kelsen originally conciebed it.

To separate completely the moral background from a positive law (by positive I mean manifest or written law, if you please) would have made the Nazi regime untouchable for it`s crimes, because all of them were made strictly according to the state laws.

So, the following phrases:

The Coup was legitimate (In my concept).

I agree, it wasn`t ousted by any legal means.

Can fully coexist in a coherent argument.

*********************************************************************

And the US sent military advisers, the CIA, weapons, School of the Americas graduates to Chile. The point was that the USSR and Cuba, while friendly to Allende's Chile did not control the government nor act as more than allies, which is more than can be said for the US. So the argument about keeping 'foreign influences out' is flat out wrong.

Prove it. I can`t prove that it didn`t happen, because I can`t prove a negative.

But what I can say, is that the USA`s support to the military junta in Chile went no further than some chilean graduates from the School of the Americas, sporadic intelligence information, and things like that. NO ECONOMICAL SUPPORT. The US government condemned the Junta after discrepancies about the managment of the country (we actually were pretty attacked (internationally, not militarily) by the US), specifically because we didn`t wanted to be puppets of anyone.

After the assasination of Orlando Letelier in Washington, it all turned very shitty between the US and Chile.

Something that might ilustrate the subject: Do you know what the Kennedy Amendment was? Well, that wasn`t the only measure taken against Chile in those years.

How do you know he wouldn't. And in that case, had Allende lost the election, the people, with military support, could have legitimately overthrown Allende and put the proper democratic government in office. Thereby making Allende the villain for blocking democracy, as it stands he is the victim because he was the elected president.

By making a simple look at what happens with the elections in countries where a totalitarian regime is on the power.

Saddam had the 100% of the votes when he was elected, you know...

There can be no democracy in a regime that uses totalitarian methods, and that views as an objective to implant by force a totalitarian regime.

**********************************************************************

"Among our laws"? Voy a presumir que sos chileno. Bienvenido al "Backroom" hermano del oeste.

Gracias amigo, sí, soy Chileno. Eres argentino? Saludos pal otro lado de los Andes!!!! (Thanks buddy, yes, I`m Chilean. Are you and argentinean? Greetings to the other side of the Andes)

That will lead me to ask: What would have happened if there was a civil war and the armies of Allende have won? Do you ask yourself the same question? Will it have been better to wage a civil war than to allow a centralized power to opress the people at the scale they did?

Well, making an excercise of ucrony is often difficult. To do it, one of the best ways to know the "what if" is to make a comparison among similar examples around the globe.

First, let`s compare with cold war struggles around the world. In my opinion, it would have happened something similar to what happened in Vietnam or Korea, only in a much smaller scale. We would have begun with a fraticide fight (which most probably would have extended to neighboring countries), and then we would have had (probably, after what happened in Vietnam those years, I`m not sure) a full scale military intervention of the USA.

The death toll would have been counted not in thousands, but in hundreds of thousands or even in millions.

Would the extreme leftists had won, defeated the regular army and installed a comunist regime here, in addition of the direct cassualties from the civil war, we would have followed the sad fate of Cuba or North Corea, with thousands of deaths caused by excecutions, deaths in gulags, and because of famine (just like what happened in North Korea and China).

I've heard arguments of economic stabilization in Chile. However let's be sincere here, no country in South America is really stabilized, at least in the economical aspect.

Hehehehe! Nothing is ethernal, not our 20 year economical bonanza, nor your economical crisis (assuming that you`re argentinean). Everything changes, the wheel of fortuna leaves you looking at the sky in one minute, and squashes you against the ground on another.

What about a social force? The people didn't unite a cause?

That was the problem. Both sides were so polarized and poisoned with utopies and irrational hate, that no side was able to govern. The Institutions were completely broken, the separation of powers was gone... there was no order or sistem by which you could govern a country, because every institution (the courts, the police, the parlament, the social security sistems) was already violated and destroyed.

The size of the state was mounstruous, ungovernable. The police was nullified, all the industries were closed, the country didn`t produced anything. The government was so busy making theories about distributing the goods, that it forgot to produce goods. Thus, we had famine, lack of goods, etc.

The country was paralyzed, and the rationing that had went for a number of years was evolving rapidly into downright famine and misery.

No social force was able to govern that thing. There was a complete anarchy.

The theory of culpability, in this kind of cases, attributes the responsability to highest ranking officer in any centralized system, when the actions of his subordinates happen during their offices.

Yes, that`s right. But that`s political or hierarchical resposability. But personal or direct responsability is another issue, one that should determined by the court.

And it doesn't matter either, only 1 torture ordered would have been enough to descredit his legitimacy.

I agree.

Only in a legal process. But Pinochet was only exposed to the excrutiny of the people, not the organs of an State.

I agree with you, but we cannot mistake the public or historical judgment with the legal judgment. Qualifiying someone as legally guilty when there is no res iudicata is erroneous.

On the same matter, I must say that he was being judged and investigated, so actually he was being exposed to the organs of the state.

Only that he wasn`t condemned.

Yes I've heard that argument too in a demostration too. The real question if it was something good or bad. Both measures would have been transitory (the Junta and the "dictatorship of the proletariate"), in theory at least. Both could have helped to stabilize the country.

The dictatorship of the proletariate......... transitory? Hmmm, that`s what Lenin said. And Stalin and the party during the 20s... the 30s.... the 40s... well, I think you get my point.

Again I think that this begs the question: What if a Civil War prevented a dictatorship? I.e. If it had happened the other way around.

I think I answered this one above.

(Security) Are you sure about it? Or is it only for the eyes of the higher classes and the cities?

At least now, nobody can come here and expropiate your land or your property in the name of social justice, because you have too much (too much may vary, specially on the lips of a totalitarian regime)... nor demand that you should affiliate to a sindicate or a party in order to get a job... at least, you know for sure that the product of what you worked today is going to be "yours for sure", and not "yours, but only till the State wants it for himself". (except for the taxes, off course )

I think he refers to the limits conflict. There was always a limits conflict between his country and mine. The Beagle's Channel conflict was the most important. That's what Pinochet allegedly avoided: In 1978 Argentina was at the edge of war with Chile, there was three extreme southern islands at stake, right on the Beagle's Channel. This conflict erupted in the XIX century as a consequence of a limits treaty between Chile and Argentina wich didn't even treat the subject of whose power was exercised on the waters of the channel.

Yes, I did. And thank God (and the Pope) we didn`t get to blow eachother`s noses...

Un gusto!
Adios!

[Caius]

Hola, soy de la otra parte de la cordillera de los Andes!!!!!

No social force was able to govern that thing. There was a complete anarchy.

And a republic in flames...It was the same situation there and here.

[Tribesman]

Well, to be brief, the strict legal positivism was abandoned long ago, and the postulates of Hobbes and Bentham on the matter are now greatly moderated by the influence of some principles coming from the old ius naturalism. That is, you cannot separate completely the moral from the legal norm.

But the coup was neither legal or moral .
The problems that plotters claimed they were morally obliged to fix were problems they themselves(and their backers) were creating .

[-Praetor-]

The problems that plotters claimed they were morally obliged to fix were problems they themselves(and their backers) were creating .

That`s entirely false. Because, the people that created those problems never took part on the government. On the first years of the junta, only the military took active part on the government and managment of the country.

The military never created problems to the government, moreover, the president called some generals to office as ministers and governors, hoping that the military would help him regain power by integrating them to the government...

Strange thing for an armed force that, prior to 1973, hoped to remain at the margin of politics. It all begun with Allende calling generals to office as ministers, but after that, the whole thing just backfired on him.

On another point of the same topic, lemme ask you all some questions, because I`m ignorant on this:

A) *** How do you think Allende`s government fared on it`s 3 years of duration (1970-1973), in matters of economy, public order, education, moral, etc.?

B) *** If you think that Allende`s government had problems, which ones (in your opinion) were it`s primary causes?

Thanks, bye.

[Tribesman]

That`s entirely false. Because, the people that created those problems never took part on the government. On the first years of the junta, only the military took active part on the government and managment of the country.

That post suggests a complete detatchment from reality .

Though on your other "points"
A) Very well initially , until the actions taken to undermine the country kicked in . The same actions BTW that are repeatedly used even today .

B) upsetting the wrong people without taking the nesccasary measures to negate their actions .
You will no doubt have noticed that the bloke in Venezuela has managed to sidestep identical attempts at economic sabotage , and even manged to survive a similar attempt at regime change .

[-Praetor-]

:laugh4That post suggests a complete detatchment from reality .

And that statement demonstrates a formidable ignorance about which persons integrated the government of the first years of the military junta.

A) Very well initially , until the actions taken to undermine the country kicked in . The same actions BTW that are repeatedly used even today .

Oh, this is interesting. And which actions where those, in your opinion?

B) upsetting the wrong people without taking the nesccasary measures to negate their actions .

Like:

*trying to control the press?
*arresting, kidnapping, and murdering disidents?
*confiscating their properties by the mecanism of expropiation... and with no monetary compensation?
*creating paralell armed forces?
*nullifying the actions of the police in the protection of dissidents (kinda like making them a public enemy, efectively making that every personal attack on them or on their property, done by anyone, go unpunished)?
*nullifying the disfavourable desitions of the courts of justice, by negating the imperium of their resolutions provided by the assistance of the public force?

Yes, Allende`s government did do that, and more, between 1970-1973. Systematically.

You will no doubt have noticed that the bloke in Venezuela has managed to sidestep identical attempts at economic sabotage , and even manged to survive a similar attempt at regime change .

I don`t emit opinion on the government in Venezuela, because I don`t know enough facts to have a serious opinion about it. And I don`t like talking about what I don`t know. That would be disrespectful to the people that actually live on that country.

Cheers!!!

[Tribesman]

And that statement demonstrates a formidable ignorance about which persons integrated the government of the first years of the military junta.

And that Statement shows either that you didn't read what you quoted or didn't comprehend . In fact you appear to be under the impression that Pinochet and his underlings were acting all by themselves for the agrandinshment and cultural benefits to be making for the herioc nation of Chile .

Like:

*trying to control the press?
*arresting, kidnapping, and murdering disidents?
*confiscating their properties by the mecanism of expropiation... and with no monetary compensation?
*creating paralell armed forces?
*nullifying the actions of the police in the protection of dissidents (kinda like making them a public enemy, efectively making that every personal attack on them or on their property, done by anyone, go unpunished)?
*nullifying the disfavourable desitions of the courts of justice, by negating the imperium of their resolutions provided by the assistance of the public force?

Yes, Allende`s government did do that, and more, between 1970-1973. Systematically.

Nope , none of that , I mean the securing of alternative finance and trade plus ensuring effective control of vital transport .
Its a bit of a bugger when you promise people bread , and promise that it will cost the same as it did yesterday then to find that your flour supplyer ain't gonna sell you any and what flour you do have you do not have the means to move it to the bakery ...sort of thing

[-Praetor-]

And that Statement shows either that you didn't read what you quoted or didn't comprehend .

Well, frankly, statements like "That post suggests a complete detatchment from reality." is pretty ambiguous, since you never say why it`s a complete detatchment of reality...

In fact you appear to be under the impression that Pinochet and his underlings were acting all by themselves for the agrandinshment and cultural benefits to be making for the herioc nation of Chile.

So, you`re stating that Chile, or the Junta, was governed from the outside?

If so, please state by who.

If you think that it was directed by some factic powers from the inside, please state by which ones.

BTW, the last words were tendentious...

I mean the securing of alternative finance and trade plus ensuring effective control of vital transport.

Alternative finance? Well the quest for finding "alternative finances" resulted in the "marvellous" solution to increase the emission of money in order to finance the enormous public deficit...

The rest is the apply of monetary theory.

Regarding to other alternative finances: Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, Mitrokhin archive: How 'weak' Allende was left out in the cold by the KGB describing relations between Allende and the KGB, including KGB payments to Allende. The Times September 19, 2005.

He was being financiated from the Soviet Union, via Cuba.

Trade? The economical doctrine of those years was to have a closed market, and to be autarchyc (self supporting, economic independence as a national policy). Allende`s government extremed this position with the illegal apropiation of the means of production of goods and services by the state, including enterprises, mines, transport, etc., no matter they were owned by national or foreign enterprisers or capitals.

Since the State owned most of the economical structure of the country... who`s to blame if the country enters a state of total economical paralysis? USA? CIA? Transnationals? The housewife that buys 2 bags of flour instead of one, because she won`t know if there`ll be something to eat the next week? C`mon...

Its a bit of a bugger when you promise people bread , and promise that it will cost the same as it did yesterday then to find that your flour supplyer ain't gonna sell you any and what flour you do have you do not have the means to move it to the bakery ...sort of thing

So, you`re suggesting a boicot, a self boicot, from the own citizens and enterprisers...

Do I have to remind that almost every mean of production in this country, was owned by the State?

Cheers!

[Tribesman]

So, you`re stating that Chile, or the Junta, was governed from the outside?

once again you fail to read what was written .
Well if you think that it wasn't funded , aided and supported from the outside , and the overthrown government wasn't hindered , sabotaged and undermined from the outside then you prove my point earlier .....
"That post suggests a complete detatchment from reality."

Since the State owned most of the economical structure of the country... who`s to blame if the country enters a state of total economical paralysis? USA? CIA? Transnationals? The housewife that buys 2 bags of flour instead of one, because she won`t know if there`ll be something to eat the next week? C`mon...

C,mon , its your country , you should know which element of the transport industry bought most transport of goods and materials to a standstill .

edit to add . It appears that perhaps you are unaware that much of the crap that went on has been declassified for the past 6 years . You know nice stuff like wrecking the finances , blocking trade ,paying for "local" strikes , kidnappings , assasinations .
Hey they even went public and apologised to your country and its people for their actions , maybe you missed it .
Condor is a nice word to look up , so is Fubelt .
Perhaps you might want to inform yourself about events since it seems you views are about as correct as the stuff in the "white book" about Allende .

[Soulforged]

Well, making an excercise of ucrony is often difficult. To do it, one of the best ways to know the "what if" is to make a comparison among similar examples around the globe.

It could be. But Chile is Chile, Korea is Korea, China is China, you get my point. Communism in China, though brutal and oppresive, was very succesful. That says a lot about their culture. Now let's see Chile.

First, let`s compare with cold war struggles around the world. In my opinion, it would have happened something similar to what happened in Vietnam or Korea, only in a much smaller scale. We would have begun with a fraticide fight (which most probably would have extended to neighboring countries), and then we would have had (probably, after what happened in Vietnam those years, I`m not sure) a full scale military intervention of the USA.

That's a very good point.

The death toll would have been counted not in thousands, but in hundreds of thousands or even in millions.

That's also a very good point. A war of that kind always is long and costs many lives.

Would the extreme leftists had won, defeated the regular army and installed a comunist regime here, in addition of the direct cassualties from the civil war, we would have followed the sad fate of Cuba or North Corea, with thousands of deaths caused by excecutions, deaths in gulags, and because of famine (just like what happened in North Korea and China).

Perhaps. Perhaps it would be only chilean communism. If you get my point.

Hehehehe! Nothing is ethernal, not our 20 year economical bonanza, nor your economical crisis (assuming that you`re argentinean). Everything changes, the wheel of fortuna leaves you looking at the sky in one minute, and squashes you against the ground on another.

Couldn't agree more. But we've to help that wheel, and it appears that it always avoids the south. Damn wheel!!

No social force was able to govern that thing. There was a complete anarchy.

Was there a plan (serious or otherwise) to break the territory in different autonomous territories or States?

Yes, that`s right. But that`s political or hierarchical resposability. But personal or direct responsability is another issue, one that should determined by the court.

With the mention of Kelsen, I'd also assume you're a lawyer, or you're at least studying laws. This theory of responsability by hierarchy is original of Clauss Roxin. But it functions exactly to attribute personal responsability when there's a chain of command or at least an organization of functions.

I agree with you, but we cannot mistake the public or historical judgment with the legal judgment. Qualifiying someone as legally guilty when there is no res iudicata is erroneous.

Well I'm only trying to imply that the average person cares litte about rational cannons.

On the same matter, I must say that he was being judged and investigated, so actually he was being exposed to the organs of the state.

Yes I forgot that.

The dictatorship of the proletariate......... transitory? Hmmm, that`s what Lenin said. And Stalin and the party during the 20s... the 30s.... the 40s... well, I think you get my point.

It's a long story. If you analyze Marx and then pass throught the communits who reinterpreted him until you reach Lenin, you'll notice a development in the rol the proletariate played in a socialist State. Lenin amplified the rol of the burgoise for example. Then you read some of the words of Stalin, who was an inspiration for Mao, and you'll notice that he's the first communist activists who, once he's in power, says that the revolution is always happening and the State is the engine of that revolution. By sheer logic, Stalin (a little astute perhaps), ends by stating, the State always stays. As I said, in theory, many communists say that the State in a socialism, or a dictatorship, is only transitory, a result of seizing the power. When there's no more economic differences (wich in turn finishes with the classes) the State dies, slowly. To Marx, and many communists, theory and praxis are one and the same.

Yes, I did. And thank God (and the Pope) we didn`t get to blow eachother`s noses...

Yes the Pope was an strong force there, making it all public and a shame for whoever rejected his proposition for peace. But the Pope got a few "gifts" on that meeting too...

Un gusto!

¡Igualmente!

[-Praetor-]

once again you fail to read what was written .
Well if you think that it wasn't funded , aided and supported from the outside , and the overthrown government wasn't hindered , sabotaged and undermined from the outside then you prove my point earlier .....
"That post suggests a complete detatchment from reality."

C,mon , its your country , you should know which element of the transport industry bought most transport of goods and materials to a standstill .

edit to add . It appears that perhaps you are unaware that much of the crap that went on has been declassified for the past 6 years . You know nice stuff like wrecking the finances , blocking trade ,paying for "local" strikes , kidnappings , assasinations .
Hey they even went public and apologised to your country and its people for their actions , maybe you missed it .
Condor is a nice word to look up , so is Fubelt .
Perhaps you might want to inform yourself about events since it seems you views are about as correct as the stuff in the "white book" about Allende .

First, if you want to believe that the Junta recieved economical aid from the outside, and again ignore resolutions like, for example, the Kennedy Anmendment, which leaved Chile with it`s pants down against Velasco Alvarado... (pretty thing for an ally to do), go ahead. Since you are so fond of declaring that I should inform myself, perhaps we both should take a look at plans like Operation Toucan and such too.

And no, I don`t ignore the FUBELT, nor the CONDOR (which has nothing to do with the collapse of the economy in 1970-1973 BTW). But people tend to confuse the intervention with direct control. The extension of CIA`s intervention hardly could have affected a significant part of Chile`s economy in order to be of any efect to the collapse of the economy.

You talk about transport... what use transport is for, when there are no goods to transport?

To believe that CIA`s and USA`s intervention was determinant to the fall of Allende`s regime, is just a cheap justification that leftist use since 1973 itself.

Perhaps you might want to inform yourself about events since it seems you views are about as correct as the stuff in the "white book" about Allende .

That doesn`t even deserve a comment.

[Tribesman]

And no, I don`t ignore the FUBELT, nor the CONDOR (which has nothing to do with the collapse of the economy in 1970-1973 BTW).

Yessssssss.....economic sabotage has nothing to do with the collapse of the economy
Are you going out of your way to prove ......."That post suggests a complete detatchment from reality."

To believe that CIA`s and USA`s intervention was determinant to the fall of Allende`s regime, is just a cheap justification that leftist use since 1973 itself.

Well perhaps you had better tell the CIA and the American government , I don't think you could really call them leftist though .
Oh and it wasn't actually that cheap either .
Damn them kidnappings can be expensive , and its a bit embarrasing when the muppets you pay screw up and kill the victim instead of just keeping them out of the way for a while .
But hey its vital to keep the wrong sort of military people out of politics innit .

[Adrian II]

Well perhaps you had better tell the CIA and the American government (.)

Seems like the sort of thread Tribesman has been waiting for.

Let me just say it's gotta be a hot show downstairs since Jeanne and Milton also died this year. The fires are being stoked amidst, you know, all the witness confrontations, interviews, Orlando Letelier's and Victor Jara's testimonies...

[Tribesman]

Seems like the sort of thread Tribesman has been waiting for.

Well Adrain it isn't everday that someone calls statements from the US government a cheap leftist justification

If I could be bothered I might just go back and sort through all the alternate reality posts from the "hey he may the leader of an illegal murderous dictatorship , but I love him" camp .
And give a piece by piece .....ooops that ain't true ....oops that is clearly false .......ooops that just contradicted what you claimed earlier ......treatment .
But instead I might just ask kraso .
What do you think of your new leader ?
Oh dear another leftist one isn't it , and not only that but a former exile whose family were victims of that warm cuddly dictator who managed to rob your country blind yet you so admire .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well Adrain it isn't everday that someone calls statements from the US government a cheap leftist justification

Only you're allowed to make those, right?

[Tribesman]

Only you're allowed to make those, right?

Yep Alex I am well known for calling US govrernment statements cheap leftist justifications

Hey Kraso ...where have you gone ?
I really would like you to put me right on a few things I don't understand .

And no, I don`t ignore the FUBELT, nor the CONDOR (which has nothing to do with the collapse of the economy in 1970-1973 BTW).
What does "make the economy scream" mean ?
who said it ?
when did they say it ?
what was the original cash allocation for it ?
what were the limits set for further cash allocations if the economy didn't scream enough ?

Or would you just like to do a big full page instead since you appear to have completely ignored Fubelt .

Also as I ain't too good at economics and stuff like that could you explain how it would be possible to collapse a specific market , like copper for example ?
Could it possibly ..... by a really big stretch of the imagination .....be an identical method to that used against Cuba and its sugar industry ?