Former Chilean dictator Pinochet dies at 91

[Ronin]

CNN Story

does it make a difference that the bastard managed to stay out of court?

discuss...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Hell.org has a new Senior Member.

It's a major pity for Chile that he was never brought to justice. It makes it harder to move on, but the knowledge that he had embezzled many millions took the shine off him for even his most ardent supporters.

It's one of those times I wish I believed in Hell.

[Lemur]

Pinochet was bad, but there have been worse, far worse. For some reason this is reminding me of Marquez's book, The Autumn of the Patriarch.

[Tribesman]

I do like the comment from the White House spokesman

``Our thoughts today are with the victims of his reign and their families. We commend the people of Chile for building a society based on freedom, the rule of law and respect for human rights.''

do you think they may just possibly be suffering from a memory deficiency there .

but the knowledge that he had embezzled many millions took the shine off him for even his most ardent supporters.

His star still shone brightly for Maggie Thatcher

[Ronin]

It's one of those times I wish I believed in Hell.

couldn´t have put it better myself

[rory_20_uk]

Yup, a bastard. But 3,000 is nothing compared to many other "leaders".

And which countries put him there in the first case? Same one that helped Baptista along with a myriad of others. Realpolitik is all very well and good, but to then take the moral high ground as well is a bit much.

[JimBob]

The worst part is that the US supported Pinochet. But then we have supported almost every tin-pot SOB south of the border.

[AntiochusIII]

The worst part is that the US supported Pinochet. But then we have supported almost every tin-pot SOB south of the border.

Neocon hypocrisy.

No wonder those down there despise the USA so much. Ah well. Don't wake up, Pinochet.

[BigTex]

Good riddance there's a special place in hell's toilet for him. Horrible person, wonderful day though, I hope this get's turned into a holiday for the Chilian's.

As for supporting him. It was our policy back then. We wanted to keep foriegn influences out of the America's. Sad that it sometimes meant supporting horrible people.

discuss...

Remain seated...

[Kralizec]

I feel sorry for Margaret Thatcher

[Dutch_guy]

I hope this get's turned into a holiday for the Chilian's.

Wasn't it 'Human Right's Day' when he died, yesterday ?

Now that's pretty Ironic.

[Scurvy]

The worst part is that the US supported Pinochet.

I'm not sure i like all this "i'm happy he died" stuff though, death is never good

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

To throw some gas-soaked grenades at the fire, did Pinochet benefit his country? Sure, he was an oppressive dictator, but he brought prosperity to his nation. Sounds a lot like some patrons here have described Saddam - that he should have been left in power because he could hold Iraq together. Was he better than the alternative - a leftist government backed by the Soviet Union that would have turned Chile into another tin-pot "worker's paradise"?

[Scurvy]

Was he better than the alternative - a leftist government backed by the Soviet Union that would have turned Chile into another tin-pot "worker's paradise"?

You never know, it might have worked

[Banquo's Ghost]

To throw some gas-soaked grenades at the fire, did Pinochet benefit his country? Sure, he was an oppressive dictator, but he brought prosperity to his nation. Sounds a lot like some patrons here have described Saddam - that he should have been left in power because he could hold Iraq together. Was he better than the alternative - a leftist government backed by the Soviet Union that would have turned Chile into another tin-pot "worker's paradise"?

He benefitted a certain class in Chile, for sure - and it can be argued that his economic policies set the country up to be one of the most prosperous in South America.

The simple return question is this: Is having one's liberty taken away and society shot through with secret policement worth a good economy?

Remember, that leftist government was elected by the people. Surely the people have the right to make their own mistakes? Does the army matter more than the people? And how do we know how the people's choice would have turned out?

[AntiochusIII]

To throw some gas-soaked grenades at the fire, did Pinochet benefit his country? Sure, he was an oppressive dictator, but he brought prosperity to his nation. Sounds a lot like some patrons here have described Saddam - that he should have been left in power because he could hold Iraq together. Was he better than the alternative - a leftist government backed by the Soviet Union that would have turned Chile into another tin-pot "worker's paradise"?

The difference between them is essentially that Saddam coup-ed his way in (though of course a sprinkling of American support here and there, and a huge de-facto direct funding for the whole duration of the bloody Iran-Iraq war...), stealing power from dictators before him; whereas the American-backed Pinochet overthrew the legitimate government of Chile, elected by the people, and put its people into oppression for all the years of his reign for their own benefit.

Pinochet is American responsibility all the way through; blasting out Saddam at the twilight of his leadership for no reason, however...

[yesdachi]

Pinochet is American responsibility all the way through; blasting out Saddam at the twilight of his leadership for no reason, however...

Do you think the US blasted out Saddam at the twilight of his leadership for no reason?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Doing some wiki research (is that an oxymoron?) it seems that Pinochet staged his coup during a time when there was debate over wrongdoings committed by Salvador Allende, the elected President. The parliament passed a resolution calling for Allende to get the boot, and Pinochet walks in with his military.

Kind of interesting, since it looks like Pinochet was helping one democratically elected branch of government topple another. He was doing it for his own benefit, but still interesting.

I wonder if Castro will receive the same denouncement when he finally kicks the bucket. As far as I can see, he's a worse offender than Pinochet - at least Pinochet stepped down, sort of.

As to your counter question, BG, I would say, "no."

[JimBob]

As for supporting him. It was our policy back then. We wanted to keep foriegn influences out of the America's. Sad that it sometimes meant supporting horrible people.

Foreign influences? Allende was a democratically elected president. He had relations with the USSR, but he was not their puppet. The only country consistently medaling in Chile at the time was the US. American companies regularly supported presidential candidates who were pro-US by throwing money at them.

And Pinochet wasn't the only one. We propped up the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. We threw out the elected leader Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala for buying land from US companies at the price they reported on their tax returns. Trujillo, Batista. The list of dictators with a penchant for disappearing their subjects is disgustingly long.

Doing some wiki research (is that an oxymoron?) it seems that Pinochet staged his coup during a time when there was debate over wrongdoings committed by Salvador Allende, the elected President. The parliament passed a resolution calling for Allende to get the boot, and Pinochet walks in with his military.

Kind of interesting, since it looks like Pinochet was helping one democratically elected branch of government topple another. He was doing it for his own benefit, but still interesting.

That is why Pinochet was unnecessary. Allende was falling democratically. He even had plans to call for a plebiscite the speech with that plan was due to be delivered on Sept. 12 a day after coup.

[Soulforged]

I'm not sure i like all this "i'm happy he died" stuff though, death is never good

On the other side of the world you'll find people with the same idea, but only because they had the hope that Pinochet would finally reveal were are their missing relatives and parents.

I wonder if Castro will receive the same denouncement when he finally kicks the bucket. As far as I can see, he's a worse offender than Pinochet - at least Pinochet stepped down, sort of.

No, he won't. In this side of the planet he'll receive a modarate praise. But Pinochet has also his support, even inside Chile, as we've our own supporters of the Junta here also. The arguement of this people is usually that the dictators didn't order the illegal enprisonments, the tortures and the killings at the rate "other people" say they did. For example here (with one of the greatest numbers) the number of missing people reaches 76.000, in Chile I believe it's 5.000, however in both cases they say that the number is not greater than 3.000. Some people also deny the sistematic character of this processeses.

One thing is truth, however, in both cases the dictatorships brought a new culture to both countries, the human rights culture.

He benefitted a certain class in Chile, for sure - and it can be argued that his economic policies set the country up to be one of the most prosperous in South America.

Yes that's truth. Here the same thing happened, only that the benefitted class in my country were the land owners (between others, like the Catholic Church), wich didn't improve the economy at all. But Chile benefitted more by allying themselves with USA and Great Britain.

There's one thing that repulses me more about Pinochet than any other thing, he never recognized that what he had done was morally wrong, he never asked for the forgiveness of the thousands of people suffering in his country, instead he went to England and was received with open arms by the political class. At least Tatcher did thank him for his support. Seeing him say that he had nothing to regret the other night was pathetic and I almost puke also.

[Ronin]

To throw some gas-soaked grenades at the fire, did Pinochet benefit his country? Sure, he was an oppressive dictator, but he brought prosperity to his nation. Sounds a lot like some patrons here have described Saddam - that he should have been left in power because he could hold Iraq together. Was he better than the alternative - a leftist government backed by the Soviet Union that would have turned Chile into another tin-pot "worker's paradise"?

one dictatorship isn´t better than another......be it right wing or left wing....in the end it´s the people that suffer.

[-Praetor-]

Hi

I would like to dig around three big points:

1º The legitimacy of the coup d`etat of 1973 is out of question. Although it lacks completely of positive legal basis among our laws, their bottom reasons were undeniable. The climate of violence, the state terrorism, the sistematical violation of human rights before september 11 1973, all with the State`s excequatur, were unbearable. No human beign in Chile was safe from the violence of those days, the confrontation climate was escalating rapidly into a full scale civil war, incentivated by the government.

Allende`s government knew this, and was preparing accordingly. Tens of thousands of short arms were found into secret arsenals, amongst them AK`s, M-16, MG3, DSHK`s, LAW`s, etc. That armament was bought to the international black market via Cuba, and was being internated massively into Chile on russian and cuban ships. Right after the 9/11, kalshnikovs were found buried into sugar sacks on a ship coming from Cuba...

The thing is, here, Allende tried to make a pretty singular experiment: he tried to instaurate the socialism/comunism democratically and pacifically. But by 1973 the freedoms were totally restricted, people were being massively kidnapped and/or killed (people such as CEO`s, Judges, Senators, Officers of the armed forces, etc.), the economy was totally destroyed, and such a damage was being made to Chile, that it wasn`t before 20 years that we managed to recover completely from it.

The thing is that his "pacifical way into the socialism" was a sound failure. So, he was preparing to do it the old way, "by the book". Just like Cuba, North Corea, Vietnam, and Russia.

Such were the circumstances here in Chile, that there was no political force strong enough to reorganize the country. No political force was able to govern. So, the Right and the Center political wings, in order to stop a civil war, asked for the Military to intervene.

The most important calls for the military to intervene were:

*May 26, 1973, Supreme court denounced the "disruption of the legality of the nation" by its failure to uphold judicial decisions, due to the government's constant refusal to allow the police to carry out the judicial resolutions that were opposed to its own measures. (This isn`t specifically a call for the military, but it demonstrates that the Rule of Law was long gone by 9/11/1973) (to read more, take a peek at Wikipedia)

*The chambers of deputies, in august `73, specifically called for the military intervention. From Wikipedia:

On August 22, 1973 the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies passed, by 81 to 47 votes, a resolution entitled "Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy", which called upon the military to "put an immediate end" to what they described as "breach[es of] the Constitution… with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that the Allende government was seeking "...to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system," and claimed that it had made "violations of the Constitution" into "a permanent system of conduct." Many of the charges came down to disregarding the separation of powers and arrogating the prerogatives of both the legislature and judiciary within the executive.

Among other particulars, the regime was accused of:

***ruling by decree, thus thwarting the normal system of adopting legislation
***refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its own partisans and "not ***carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravene its objectives"
***ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
***various offenses related to the media, including usurping control of the National Television Network and "applying ... economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government..."
***allowing its supporters to assemble even when armed, while preventing legal assembly by its opponents
***"...supporting more than 1,500 illegal 'takings' of farms..."
***illegal repression of the El Teniente strike
***illegally limiting emigration

The resolution finally condemned the "creation and development of government-protected armed groups which... are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces." Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and police, which he could not trust in their current forms, were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks."

Allende`s repsonse, if you haven`t figured it out, was a call of arms.

Now, the second topic:

2º

Human Rights. Nothing can justify the killing of 3000 human beigns. As someone said earlier, no economical boost can justify the killing of others.

Their murders were made often in horrible conditions, and followed tortures and degradatory treatments. They weren`t excecuted after a legal process, and many of them were innocent of the crimes of which they were accused.


Just like in any war that the history remembers.


That`s what it happened here. The Junta didn`t prevented the civil strife, but only reduced it to it`s minimal expression.

The casualties on the coup`s day were suprisingly low (30 or so), but more than 1500 people (political prisoners) were killed on the first 3 months. Those people were mainly leaders of leftist organizations, people that (in the junta`s concept) represented a risk for the goverment, for their potential to organize and lead terrorist groups and paralell governments. With their elimination, the possibility of an escalation of the conflict was nulled.

During the regime, the junta sitematically violated human rights via political murders and tortures. That cannot be justified.

Now: The sistematical violation of human rights was Pinochet`s responsability?

Politically, yes. He was politically responsible of everything that happened on his government, with or withouth his knowledge.

Did he ordered all those excecutions and tortures? Is he guilty by omission? Or maybe all those killings and torture were product of disciplinary problems and actions of lesser generals and colonels? It`s a pretty debated matter, but it all aims that he ordered people to be shot at. Then again, it`s pretty debated, and no court did declared him guilty.

Personally, I think he did ordered killings and tortures, but it`s precentage is uncertain, so we cannot know wether he ordered to kill 3000 or 300.

And criminal responsability cannot be presumed.

3º

Legacy.

I don`t wanna over extend this post more than as it is, so I`m just going to list some points:

***Prevented the arrival of the comunism into our country.
***Prevented (mitigated?) a civil war.
***Reorganized the State`s institutions, and reduced the size of the public structure.
***Repared the enormous economic and moral damage that was being made to our country.
***Laid the foundations of the strongest economies of South America.
***Gave us an institutional order that works till this day.
***Gave us back the democracy (delivering the goverment via plebiscit)
***Prevented a war against Argentina and Peru
***Gave us stability in every respect

***3000 deaths and thousands of people torturated.

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

You can get your own conclusions, I tried to be as objective as it can gets for a person that lives on the very same country on which all that I`ve wrote actually happened.

Bye.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

But Castro will undoubtedly be mourned as a martyr or father while Pinochet is vilified - deservingly. It is this disparity that annoys me, as I suspect it is partisan in nature.

[AntiochusIII]

Haven't had time to read your entire post yet, so don't take this as a final judgement or anything like that.

But this:

moral damage

Come on.

He surely did not restore whatever morality was supposed to mean by "disappearing" all those people, surely?

Edit: a little more detailed:

1º The legitimacy of the coup d`etat of 1973 is out of question. Although it lacks completely of positive legal basis among our laws, their bottom reasons were undeniable.

Do you mean it is legitimate, or it is not?

I could not support the former if that is your implication. Simply put, a coup d'etat done without the majority popular support is just that, a power-grabbing coup d'etat. No amount of "but somebody wants them in!" would work. Even if the Supreme Court of Chile or its Congress equivalent (Chamber of Deputies?) ordered the military intervention -- which the former did not -- there would still be no true legitimacy by any means. If the US Supreme Court declares tomorrow that Bush is a communist scum and the military needs to throw him out; and the country did not get to vote about it -- I'd call that illegitimate.

Try the recent case in Thailand for example. Quite a few hundreds of thousands (millions?) wanted Thaksin out, yet the majority of the country voted him in and haven't voted him out yet. What the military did is despicable villainy there. I wish them generals all terrible death for betraying the Country's Democratic experiments. Needless to say, I don't need to wish for Pinochet's...

Allende`s repsonse, if you haven`t figured it out, was a call of arms.

There isn't anything wrong with a call of self-defense against a military on the verge of a coup now, is there?

The thing is, Allende was not ousted by legal means. And you can speculate all you want that he's about to throw a Castro tantrum, Communist Revolution or whatever, but there's no way to prove that; using in an argument to justify a dictatorship that overthrows a former regime isn't going to go with me. There are ways to dealing with a political crisis other than allowing a strongman to come in and start calling himself Il Duce.

Just like in any war that the history remembers.

It was not a war. And criminality everywhere does not excuse another criminality anywhere.

no court did declared him guilty.

Milosevic "died innocent."

***Prevented the arrival of the comunism into our country.
***Prevented (mitigated?) a civil war.
***Reorganized the State`s institutions, and reduced the size of the public structure.
***Repared the enormous economic and moral damage that was being made to our country.
***Laid the foundations of the strongest economies of South America.
***Gave us an institutional order that works till this day.
***Gave us back the democracy (delivering the goverment via plebiscit)
***Prevented a war against Argentina and Peru
***Gave us stability in every respect

- presuming communism is a crime by default isn't just.
- perhaps; or he might be considered to have actually won it. And who instigated that potential civil war again?
- which any government could've done if the will is there; and, by all means, I never heard of anyone believing that "strong, effective government" comes before human lives
- dealt with that one. Just because the Americans pumped in so much money into Chile...
- economy is not above basic human rights; Soulforged is right, though, Chile acquired that particular notion only through Pinochet's repressive reign. Hopefully it will cherish that forever.
- Allende was elected; Pinochet was not. The former might or might not be ready to squash Democracy; the latter did.
- was there any particular reason Argentina and Peru would be so eager to storm Chile if Allende continued to govern?
- you can use that as an argument, I guess; it's your country after all...
Though some who disagrees obviously don't get the chance to speak, or even live.

[JimBob]

But Castro will undoubtedly be mourned as a martyr or father while Pinochet is vilified - deservingly. It is this disparity that annoys me, as I suspect it is partisan in nature.

Castro fought Yankees. And we in the North (somewhat deservingly) have a bad name south of the border. Pinochet on the other hand was in the pocket of Yankees.

[-Praetor-]

Okey, I`ve edited cuz I didn`t read Antiochus`s answer. So here we go.

First with some previous posts:

He benefitted a certain class in Chile, for sure - and it can be argued that his economic policies set the country up to be one of the most prosperous in South America.

The foundations laid by that goverment are the substrate of the current economical structure of Chile.

Even though the current economical order doesn`t benefit everyone in this country, it sure does benefit more than a "certain class".

The simple return question is this: Is having one's liberty taken away and society shot through with secret policement worth a good economy?

Nope, I agree.

Remember, that leftist government was elected by the people.

Just like Hitler.

Surely the people have the right to make their own mistakes?

Errr, Hitler again?

And how do we know how the people's choice would have turned out?

Taking a look at countries like Cuba, and North Corea perhaps?

Foreign influences? Allende was a democratically elected president. He had relations with the USSR, but he was not their puppet. The only country consistently medaling in Chile at the time was the US. American companies regularly supported presidential candidates who were pro-US by throwing money at them.

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.

That is why Pinochet was unnecessary. Allende was falling democratically. He even had plans to call for a plebiscite the speech with that plan was due to be delivered on Sept. 12 a day after coup.

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?

I agree with you though, Pinochet was completely unnecessary, but from the point of view that if our people and the political class wouldn`t have been so obtuse and confrontational, and should they have managed the country seriously, and not like a third-world-cold-war-political-battlefield, should our political class have had brains, Pinochet wouldn`t have been neccesary.

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

And now with the one from antiochus:

He surely did not restore whatever morality was supposed to mean by "disappearing" all those people, surely?

No, it didn`t. What he did do, is to restore the regime of rights in our country, and stop a climate on which no one respected no one`s rights.

If you are familiarized with the term "class struggle", you may see what am I aiming at. There was a state sponsored education for incentivating the class struggle and open fight between the citizenship.

Off course, he did ran over thousands of people`s rights, and what`s more sad, no one can say that it was for the greater good, cuz all those kills were avoidable...

Do you mean it is legitimate, or it is not?

The Coup was legitimate (In my concept).

Simply put, a coup d'etat done without the majority popular support is just that, a power-grabbing coup d'etat.

It`s pretty subjective this apreciation, but the initial popular support to the junta was overwhelming.

Well, I can`t demand you to know this (too specifical, even though i would be amazed that you know this), Allende was elected with only the 36,6% of popular support (first mayority though, but not absolute mayority).

That was his best time, when everyone had the possibility of work, private property, freedom of leaving the country, and with something to get into their bellies.

From that moment, unquestionably, the popular support went into a constant downward curve for him.

The legitimacy of a governant, based on popular support, get`s dizzy on this point, don`t it?

Pinochet, on the worst time of his government (the time when he lost the plebiscite, after the protests, etc.), had 44,01% of popular support.

No amount of "but somebody wants them in!" would work.

I guess I didn`t expressed myself correctly. The other 2 powers of the state actually denounced that the excecutive power (President) should cease his tresspassings to the laws and to the constitution. Both declared the regime out of the constitution. The congress, a democratically elected organism, the power of the state that has the mission of watch over the president, actually asked for the military to intervene, with almost 2/3 of favorable votes...

I feel that people don`t have full conciense of what was like in 1973. There was a civil war ad portas, patronized by the government. The government sponsored the murder of tens of thousands of brethren in order to implant the communism by force (a sistem evil by nature, as someone stated)... and you say that an action made in order to overthrow that regime... is illegitimate?

What happened with USA `s mission in order to liberate Europe from nazi regime on 1941?

There isn't anything wrong with a call of self-defense against a military on the verge of a coup now, is there?

Every one has the understandable "right" to defend itself from aggression. That doesn`t justify it when you`re in a position of total illegitimacy.

The thing is, Allende was not ousted by legal means.

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

And you can speculate all you want that he's about to throw a Castro tantrum, Communist Revolution or whatever, but there's no way to prove that;

Chile was on it`s way to a revolution, and at the minute of it`s overthrow, promoted the violence between citizens. Promoted a civil strife and hate.

People on other parts of the world, perhaps more familiarized with conflicts and wars, may not see this as something very serious. Here we don`t see wars very often, and for us, to call people to kill eachother, is actually shocking.

It was not a war. And criminality everywhere does not excuse another criminality anywhere.

I was n o t justifying. If you read the whole post, you may have perceived that not in one time I did justify the murder of 3000 ppl and the torture of thousands.

I was putting it into context. It was a war. People were getting kidnapped and tortured, people were getting killed. There were 2 very clear sides, each one phisically attacking each other (very lightly, something like a skirmish, but escalating undoubtedly into a full fledged conflict)

The confrontation climate was such, that a civil war was inminent. IMO, the civil war did happend, just in a minor scale of what we normally conciebe.

- presuming communism is a crime by default isn't just.

A sistem that promotes open hate between human beigns, that specifically states that it needs a civil strife and thousands of deaths in order to succeed isn`t specifically the kingdom of heaven.

And who instigated that potential civil war again?

The political class, first the left wing, specifically the Socialist Party (Actually more confrontational than the comunist party), by promoting the violence. And also the extreme right wing for retaliating with more violence.

which any government could've done if the will is there;

Sure, but it was the only government in 150 years of history of our country that did it.

and, by all means, I never heard of anyone believing that "strong, effective government" comes before human lives

We agree again.

Just because the Americans pumped in so much money into Chile...

Okey, I perceive an apalling lack of information here about this particular aspect of this history. It denotes absolute ignorance about the role of USA during the military government. Sorry for the strong adjectives, but I can`t callificate it with less.

- economy is not above basic human rights; Soulforged is right, though, Chile acquired that particular notion only through Pinochet's repressive reign. Hopefully it will cherish that forever.

Agreed.

- was there any particular reason Argentina and Peru would be so eager to storm Chile if Allende continued to govern?

Yes. The territorial conflicts here traces back till the XIX century, and they`re pretty catalyzed with military governments with lot`s of ammo.

And we certainly weren`t on the attacking side.

Cheers.

[Lemur]

The NRO has a symposium on Pinochet. Apparently he was a great and misunderstood man. Who knew?

[Caius]

The NRO has a symposium on Pinochet. Apparently he was a great and misunderstood man. Who knew?

Dont make me laugh.In the 1970, Argentina and Chile were under autoritarism.

The question was very simple.Or you think such as the militars think or you will die.

All forgotten Argentina and the military gobernament in 1970.

[Tribesman]

Yes. The territorial conflicts here traces back till the XIX century, and they`re pretty catalyzed with military governments with lot`s of ammo.

And we certainly weren`t on the attacking side.

Are you rewriting history there .
Chile attacked , Chile declared war ...over tax on bird excrement .
Peru honoured its treaty with Bolivia , though it did try negotiation instead , and Argentina wasn't even involved .

Now could you explain this little gem .

The Coup was legitimate (In my concept).

........

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

?????????????
It seems like you have a rather strange concept there .

[Soulforged]

The legitimacy of the coup d`etat of 1973 is out of question. Although it lacks completely of positive legal basis among our laws, their bottom reasons were undeniable. The climate of violence, the state terrorism, the sistematical violation of human rights before september 11 1973, all with the State`s excequatur, were unbearable. No human beign in Chile was safe from the violence of those days, the confrontation climate was escalating rapidly into a full scale civil war, incentivated by the government.

"Among our laws"? Voy a presumir que sos chileno. Bienvenido al "Backroom" hermano del oeste.
I'm not going to deslegitimate the coup d' etat of 1973. However I don't think that the only force capable of regaining the central power and reconstructing it was the military. In the end one system of oppresion was replaced for another. The question is if it was the right thing to do given the result or the means.

Allende`s government knew this, and was preparing accordingly. Tens of thousands of short arms were found into secret arsenals, amongst them AK`s, M-16, MG3, DSHK`s, LAW`s, etc. That armament was bought to the international black market via Cuba, and was being internated massively into Chile on russian and cuban ships. Right after the 9/11, kalshnikovs were found buried into sugar sacks on a ship coming from Cuba...

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?

The thing is, here, Allende tried to make a pretty singular experiment: he tried to instaurate the socialism/comunism democratically and pacifically. But by 1973 the freedoms were totally restricted, people were being massively kidnapped and/or killed (people such as CEO`s, Judges, Senators, Officers of the armed forces, etc.), the economy was totally destroyed, and such a damage was being made to Chile, that it wasn`t before 20 years that we managed to recover completely from it.

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.

Such were the circumstances here in Chile, that there was no political force strong enough to reorganize the country. No political force was able to govern. So, the Right and the Center political wings, in order to stop a civil war, asked for the Military to intervene.

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

Human Rights. Nothing can justify the killing of 3000 human beigns. As someone said earlier, no economical boost can justify the killing of others.

If you're refering to me, then I apolagize for the mistake, but I didn't want to imply anything of the sort. That's why Pinochet is repulsive to me.

The casualties on the coup`s day were suprisingly low (30 or so), but more than 1500 people (political prisoners) were killed on the first 3 months. Those people were mainly leaders of leftist organizations, people that (in the junta`s concept) represented a risk for the goverment, for their potential to organize and lead terrorist groups and paralell governments. With their elimination, the possibility of an escalation of the conflict was nulled.

Similar actions were carried out here. The main, and pointless, goal was to surpress a way of thinking, but most of all, acting.

Did he ordered all those excecutions and tortures? Is he guilty by omission? Or maybe all those killings and torture were product of disciplinary problems and actions of lesser generals and colonels? It`s a pretty debated matter, but it all aims that he ordered people to be shot at. Then again, it`s pretty debated, and no court did declared him guilty.

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.

Personally, I think he did ordered killings and tortures, but it`s precentage is uncertain, so we cannot know wether he ordered to kill 3000 or 300.

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

And criminal responsability cannot be presumed.

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

***Prevented the arrival of the comunism into our country.

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.

***Prevented (mitigated?) a civil war.

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.

***Gave us stability in every respect

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

Are you rewriting history there .
Chile attacked , Chile declared war ...over tax on bird excrement .
Peru honoured its treaty with Bolivia , though it did try negotiation instead , and Argentina wasn't even involved .

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.