Pinochet not only voluntarily surrendered power after he defeated the Marxist terrorists in Chile, he was elected to the Chilean Senate-twice.
29 comments
Pinochet was never elected to any office. The obscenely anti-democratic constitution he came up with in 1980 created designated and lifetime senators. Pretty much all of those seats were filled by people close to him (generals and the head of the supreme court, for example. All men designated unilaterally by Pinochet). Former presidents had a guaranteed lifetime seat.
Funny thing, he was described as "an energetic, sound, rational senator" in the mid 90's. The moment that he was detained in London, he came up with dementia.
Oh look, death squad whitewashing service has arrived. Moonbattery also thinks that democratically elected governments are tyranny and military dictatorships with "fair" elections are liberty. On behalf of Chile, fuck you with an AK.
While not defending the OP opinion, Pinochet's regime is not the dystopian nightmare it is usually shown. I don't deny that many human rights violations were commited, and many acts from there still plague chilean society
And, he is certainly no saint. But again, neither was Salvador Allende. Pinochet's coup, while it was a terrible thing, it was the only realistic alternative to a civil war.
I don't like to talk about propaganda, but the main view of Pinochet outside Chile comes from his opositors, sometimes greatly distorting the facts. In Chile, the matter is being fully investigated, is far from being closed and it shouldn't be reduced to a simple "good vs. bad" showdown.
Here are some "lefty scum" who might beg to differ!
image
Funeral urns of political activists executed by the Chilean military dictatorship (1973-1990), in the cemetery of Santiago.
The families of all those people who dissapeared under his regime would like a word with you.
Hell, even if you set aside all the people who "vanished" the fact he overthrew a democratically elected government is bad enough, marxist or not.
He literally put everything on the line? He took a piece of chalk and drew a line across Chile, then had every single fucking person, animal and object in the country uprooted or dismantled and moved to this line?
You know, Stalin kept getting re-elected by the CPSU, too. I guess he was the people's choice.
Saddly, many people in chile would like to rewrite history in the same way.
Assholes like this one are far too common if you ask me.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger119.html
After all, would conservatives also say that, despite having killed six million Jews and having started World War II, which killed hundreds of millions more, Hitler also had his pluses, given his commitment to Social Security, national health care, public (i.e., government) schooling, a military-industrial complex, government-business partnerships, an interstate highway system, and other government programs that conservatives revere? No, Hitler’s murderous crimes render his other ”achievements” meaningless. (Mister Spaks edit: Hitler also hated communism)
What was a Chilean woman lying on a rape table supposed to think “At least we now have sound money in Chile”? What was a man whose fingernails were being removed supposed to scream “Viva Milton Friedman!”? What was a person being dropped into the ocean from an airplane supposed to think on his way down “At least my wife and children will have to pay less taxes”?
Would the CIA and the U.S. military ever subject American citizens to what the police and the military subjected Chilean citizens? Why wouldn’t they, especially in the midst of a major “crisis” or “emergency” in which “national security” was threatened by economic and financial chaos and by illegal “enemy combatants” who were threatening the security of the nation with terrorism? Isn’t that why they supported and continue to support what Pinochet and his henchmen did in Chile?
1. Pinochet only relinquished power after his foreign support (Yes, I'm looking at YOU, Kissinger!) disappeared, and he lost soundly in a referendum that would have given him another 8-year term.
2. He didn't come to power by "defeating Marxist terrorists": he gained power by ousting and murdering the duly-elected Presdient of Chile, Salvador Allende. Sure, Allende was a socialist; but a majority of Chileans voted for him as leader - he was democratically elected, not in any sense a terrorist.
3. Pinochet was not "voted in" as a Senator - he was appointed Senator-for-life, a privilege granted to all former Presidents with at least 6 years in office, by the Constitution HE wrote.
Three wrong out of three. Perhaps you should actually go and do some research rather than getting your history from Faux News. Also, given that over 1,000 people were executed by his orders, mostly for the crime of speaking out against him, I would say that he was a blood-thirsty brute!
Mat, there are a few inaccuracies to your post
2- While the coup wsn't legal, Allende's goverment was already declared Inconstitutional for the parlament. And Allende was chosen with only a 33% of the votes, not absolute mayority.
As a chilean, I might add, there are strong divisions in Chilean society about Pinochet's coup and goverment. A lot of people seem to think the coup itself was justified, but the abuses committed during the goverment weren't.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
