Pinochet was not our anything and we had nothing to do with getting rid of Allende or his suicide.

The coup was not about raising the Chilean GDP nor was that even the issue. Do you know what the issue was?

You seem to have a very strong opinion on the subject, are you well versed?

rubberneck,
I have seen that report. It shows no wrong doing by the CIA that I can find. And I have looked several times.

Now, were there excesses by the Pinochet regime? Surely. But I wouldn't be so quick to judge from the sidelines. How many of you critics were cognizant of events in Latin America during that time? How many of you can even begin to understand the fear of the Movimiento de 26 de Julio and what it represented in LATAM?
I find this very interesting. And wrong to a certain degree. And very simplistic. Pinochet was not king - he ruled at the leisure of the Chilean military. Many were not "leftists", they were communists. "counter revolution"? LOL. Very easy to criticize with the benefit of hindsight....

If you want to blame someone for Pinochet, blame that idiot Allende.

Please PM me so your title can be changed to accurately reflect your status. Studying UW and revolutionary warfare is not/should not be limited to the "Q" Course. I agree Robin Sage is not a prerequisite to participate in a debate; however, it does expose you to the difficulties of "realpolitic". FWIW I spent enough time in Latin America during the 80s-90s to have an excellent grasp of the politics and culture of the entire region. Pinochet was an effective strongman in the Latin American tradition. Rounding up leftists (communists) in the early days of the coup probably did more than anything to consolidate and stabilize his regime. The court of public opinion in Chile is in session, the final outcome is in doubt. There are strong arguments on both sides. Personally I think the "greater good" argument is/will be a mitigating factor. The one thing I do know is that I'm not a Chilean; therefore I am not qualified nor do I have the right to judge/condemn Pinochet. I don't know his parentage either (though the record reflects his parents were married to each other) so I would hesitate to call him a bastard. Denigrating the fact that he allowed outside experts the latitude to fix Chile's economy is disingenuous. There are worse things than having the deaths of 3,000 opponents to a government on a leader's hands. In fact, I believe there are any number of far worse evils than Pinochet. Jimmy Carter never killed anyone. In fact he was a moral man who imposed his personal morality on the world from the bully pulpit of the American presidency. His naivete' and abandonment of the Shah and Somoza resulted in the overthrow of their respective governments. They weren't perfect either but they were infinitely better than what replaced them. I personally pray that he gets to answer for the butchery of every victim of the Ayatohla (and his heirs, that problem just keeps getting worse) and the Sandinistas. Peregrino

Hey, Leozinho and rubberneck:

You two seem to have very strong opinions on this subject.

Neither of you appear to be old enough to have lived as an adult through the period we are discussing, nor does your age indicate that you have served in Latin America, much less Chile during Pinochet's rule.

Since you have such strong opinions, have you ever lived in Chile or has a close family member who did?

I am curious as to where your opinions come from, and why you are so emotional about an event outside the US in a relatively minor country.

Incidentally, if we could find a strong former military leader to take over Iraq tomorrow for a 12 year term who would be pro-US and could guarantee pacification of the nation within a few days, but he would have to disappear 3,000 people to do it, would it be worth it or not?

TR

After reading some of the news reports it seems that there are both protests and parties going on in Chile. I wonder what will occur in the country now that he is dead. A side concern for me is that one of the subsidiaries of the company that I work for is in Coronel Chile. We manufacture a lot of machines that are shipped to Chile for their lumber industry. It will be interesting to see what the talk from our corporate heads will be like after the Monday production meeting.

Apparently, it would be better to fight for 12 years and have 30,000 KIA and 300K in collateral damage.

In your analogy, I would add in "and have a stabilizing effect on a neighboring country that was also in danger."

Their poli-sci profs probably told them the Domino Effect was a myth.

Based on the examples we were given by Stalin, Mao, Castro, the Sandinistas, et al back in the day, I'm sure many felt that was a small price to pay to avoid a purge.

I'm not sure how accurate this is:
but it sounds about right. Allende strayed off the constitutional page and that was the spark that ignited the coup. I don't believe Pinochet was one of the plotters, he had to be convinced. I also believe Allende was offered asylum and refused, preferring to take his own life. I believe he was mentally unstable at the end (if not before).

TR my feelings about the subject aren't as strong as you may think they are.

I am certainly open to the possibility that I might be wrong about Pinochet but then again I wouldn't want to stand in front of my maker with his resume in hand.

I would like to give some more thought your question on Iraq. My initial response would be yes as I think the real world consequences of failure in Iraq dwarf the consequences of failing in Chile. I don't think the two are remotely equal in terms of geopolitical importance.

I can't wait to watch this one....

Good. You will find that I am not a mindless drone who has to be right all the time. I have been wrong plenty of times in my life as I am sure there will be plenty of things in the future that I'll screw up.

I am man enough to accept that I don't have all the answers and will change my position if I am presented with information that shows me that I am wrong. If that is the case here I'll be glad to have learned something new or to have been exposed to a different point of view.

Ooooh! Touchy, touchy. Yesterday you seemed pretty sure he was in hell....

Something seems to be getting lost in translation. I am not touchy about the subject in any way, shape or form. I am being sincere about being open to learn and not being dogmatic. Do I still think Pinochet is in hell? Yes, but I approach that one from a theological perspective not a political one.

I'm just messing with you. I'm off today, bored and trying to avoid going to look at new furniture.

NDD-
Who has more power, Osama bin Mama or Pinochet? I'd guess the former, so you're going to look at furniture - have a great day!

You're not helping....

Just to stir the pot, exactly what theological perspective is that? Most religions that I know of that conceive of a heaven and hell also conceive of atonement. Does yours not? Or were you with Pinochet on his death bed or at least by his side these last few years and have personal knowledge that he never atoned for any of his sins?

By the way, I think it is a sin in Roman Catholicism to state that someone is in hell, because only God can look into a man's soul.

No, that didn't help, sorry. I was trying to escape Latin American political debate for the era 1960-1990. There are 3 types of communism involved - Soviet, Cuban, and Chinese. There are shades of grey in the Socialist camp, there is the dictatorial angle, the influence of the Monroe doctrine, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the growth of the drug trade, ore production (ferrous and non ferrous), timber, and agriculture - an amazing stew of conflicting economic, political, social and cultural elements. The region has been influenced by the intelligence communities of interested and disinterested parties - to unravel in a few paragraphs what has been a mess since Cortes, and only made worse by the resources needed by the industrial giants, is unthinkable. To even grasp a portion of the complexity takes years (and trust me, I'm no expert) and there are nuances that even experts can only hope to glean as outsiders.

Who are we to say who is the monster in this case - Allende, Pinochet, Rising Sun, Black Hand, the off shoots of the drug cartels, Big oil....? Pinochet kept the wholesale slaughter to a minimum, can that be said for other countries in Latin America? I'm still doing my research, it might take years. There is no quick answer. The study of political evolution in once-subject nations is sticky - even we had a revolution, a bloody and hard fought one - why do so many Americans forget this?