Castro says U.S. afraid to face Cuba in Classic

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your socialist revisionist interpretation of the Allende Regime is laughable:

<<<CONTINUED FROM ABOVE>>>

9. That, as concerns the General Comptroller's Office—an independent institution essential to administrative legitimacy—the administration has systematically violated decrees and activities that point to the illegality of the actions of the Executive Branch or of entities dependent on it;

10. That among the administration's constant assaults on the guarantees and fundamental rights established in the Constitution, the following stand out:

a) It has violated the principle of equality before the law through sectarian and hateful discrimination in the protection authorities are required to give to the life, rights, and property of all inhabitants, through activities related to food and subsistence, as well as numerous other instances. It is to note that the President of the Republic himself has made these discriminations part of the normal course of his government by proclaiming from the beginning that he does not consider himself the president of all Chileans;

b) It has grievously attacked freedom of speech, applying all manner of economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government, illegally closing newspapers and radio networks; imposing illegal shackles on the latter; unconstitutionally jailing opposition journalists; resorting to cunning maneuvers to acquire a monopoly on newsprint; and openly violating the legal mandates to which the National Television Network is subject by handing over the post of executive director to a public official not named by the Senate, as is required by law, and by turning the network into an instrument for partisan propaganda and defamation of political adversaries;

c) It has violated the principle of university autonomy and the constitutionally recognized right of universities to establish and maintain television networks, by encouraging the takeover of the University of Chile's Channel 9, by assaulting that university's new Channel 6 through violence and illegal detentions, and by obstructing the expansion to the provinces of the channel owned by Catholic University of Chile;

d) It has obstructed, impeded, and sometimes violently suppressed citizens who do not favor the regime in the exercise of their right to freedom of association. Meanwhile, it has constantly allowed groups—frequently armed—to gather and take over streets and highways, in disregard of pertinent regulation, in order to intimidate the populace;

e) It has attacked educational freedom by illegally and surreptitiously implementing the so-called Decree of the Democratization of Learning, an educational plan whose goal is Marxist indoctrination;

f) It has systematically violated the constitutional guarantee of property rights by allowing and supporting more than 1,500 illegal "takings" of farms, and by encouraging the "taking" of hundreds of industrial and commercial establishments in order to later seize them or illegally place them in receivership and thereby, through looting, establish state control over the economy; this has been one of the determining causes of the unprecedented decline in production, the scarcity of goods, the black market and suffocating rise in the cost of living, the bankruptcy of the national treasury, and generally of the economic crisis that is sweeping the country and threatening basic household welfare, and very seriously compromising national security;

g) It has made frequent politically motivated and illegal arrests, in addition to those already mentioned of journalists, and it has tolerated the whipping and torture of the victims;

h) It has ignored the rights of workers and their unions, subjecting them, as in the cases of El Teniente [one of the largest copper mines] and the transportation union, to illegal means of repression;

i) It has broken its commitment to make amends to workers who have been unjustly persecuted, such as those from Sumar, Helvetia, Banco Central, El Teniente and Chuquicamata; it has followed an arbitrary policy in the turning over of state-owned farms to peasants, expressly contravening the Agrarian Reform Law; it has denied workers meaningful participation, as guaranteed them by the Constitution; it has given rise to the end to union freedom by setting up parallel political organizations of workers.

j) It has gravely breached the constitutional guarantee to freely leave the country, establishing requirements to do so not covered by any law.

11. That it powerfully contributes to the breakdown of the Rule of Law by providing government protection and encouragement of the creation and maintenance of a number of organizations which are subversive [to the constitutional order] in the exercise of authority granted to them by neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land, in open violation of article 10, number 16 of the Constitution. These include community commandos, peasant councils, vigilance committees, the JAP, etc.; all designed to create a so-called "popular authority" with the goal of replacing legitimately elected authority and establishing the foundation of a totalitarian dictatorship. These facts have been publicly acknowledged by the President of the Republic in his last State of the Nation address and by all government media and strategists;

12. That especially serious is the breakdown of the Rule of Law by means of the creation and development of government-protected armed groups which, in addition to threatening citizens' security and rights as well as domestic peace, are headed towards a confrontation with the Armed Forces. Just as serious is that the police are prevented from carrying out their most important responsibilities when dealing with criminal riots perpetrated by violent groups devoted to the government. Given the extreme gravity, one cannot be silent before the public and notorious attempts to use the Armed and Police Forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks;

13. That the creation of a new ministry, with the participation of high-level officials of the Armed and Police Forces, was characterized by the President of the Republic to be "of national security" and its mandate "the establishment of political order" and "the establishment of economic order," and that such a mandate can only be conceived within the context of full restoration and validation of the legal and constitutional norms that make up the institutional framework of the Republic;

14. That the Armed and Police Forces are and must be, by their very nature, a guarantee for all Chileans and not just for one sector of the Nation or for a political coalition. Consequently, the government cannot use their backing to cover up a specific minority partisan policy. Rather their presence must be directed toward the full restoration of constitutional rule and of the rule of the laws of democratic coexistence, which is indispensable to guaranteeing Chile's institutional stability, civil peace, security, and development;

15. Lastly, exercising the role attributed to it by Article 39 of the Constitution,

The Chamber of Deputies agrees:

First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land 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;

Third: To declare that if so done, the presence of those ministers in the government would render a valuable service to the Republic. To the contrary, they would gravely compromise the national and professional character of the Armed and Police Forces, openly infringing article 22 of the Constitution and seriously damaging the prestige of their institutions; and

Fourth: To communicate this agreement to His Excellency the President of the Republic, and to the Ministers of Economy, National Defense, Public Works and Transportation, and Land and Colonization.

 

[FinnMacCool]

OH come on. As if anyones going to read that whole entire thing. What your supposed to do is highlight important areas so that we don't have to plough our way through all this bullshit.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

OH come on. As if anyones going to read that whole entire thing. What your supposed to do is highlight important areas so that we don't have to plough our way through all this bullshit.

The entire thing is important it is the Resolution voted on by the Chilean congress to allow the military to depose the tyrannical Allende regime to protect the Chilean Constitution and Republic against the Marxist dictatorship which Allende was attempting to create through his numerous violations of the Chilean Constiution.

Read the whole thing it's all of importance.

 

[MSgt]

Mussolini's Fascist party (although he started his political career as a member of the Socialist party) burnt down the Socialist party headquarters in 1922. And he had the support of big business interests - doesnt sound much like a socialist to me. The same with Hitler - his party may have had socialism in its name, but it was allied with big business on a grand scale - and his remarks that he would save Germany from communism (by killing all the left-wing supporters) may seem familiar to fans of Pinochet.

No one's a fan of Pinochet. We simply don't project the world's reality as "black and white" as you do.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No one's a fan of Pinochet. We simply don't project the world's reality as "black and white" as you do.

Pinochet was granted his authority by congress to protect the Republic against the attempts by the Allende regime to destroy the Constitution in favor of a totalitarian Communist dictatorship.

Pinochet worked within the guide lines of the Constitution to protect the Republic not to destroy it, it is no coincedence that Chile is firmly Democratic today, not only that but the fact that Pinochet was protecting the Constiution can be seen in that he is now being held accountable for his excesses by that same Constiution.

Read that resolution I posted, Pinochet didn't commit a coup de'ta on his own he was ordered to by the Chilean congress in order to preserve the Constitution and the Republic against the Communist traitor and tyrant Allende, it was Allende that was the tyrant not the other way around, it's been the cause of the Socialist revisionist historians to skew the picture of what actually happened in 1973 Chile.

 

[MSgt]

Oh you mean the red-scare communist bullshit? What ever happened to that? I guess it died out when the Domino Theory was proven incorrect



Firstly, our governments duty is to provide the most amount of happiness while taking away the least amounts of rights. That doesn't mean that they have the right to undermine democracy elsewhere simply because of the big scary socialists and perceived socialists.

Secondly, what evidence is there that Allende would've been associated with Russian Trotskyites? Socialism was one of the largest and broadest political movement of the 20th century. His allegiances, and any other socialists allegiances, could've gone anywhere. George Orwell was a socialist yet he wrote one of the biggest criticisms of Russian Socialism which is now considered one of the great pieces of literiture associated with anti-authoritarian/anti-communists.

Thirdly, foreign leaders and presidents have their own duties. A democratically elected leader especially is subject to these duties. His people decide for themselves whether he is fit for this task. That is the way democracy works. When people start going around deciding whats good for us, then things start to turn away from democracy and go towards authoritarianism.

Finally, a nation's duty doesn't amount to just protecting its citizens. They have a moral obligation which is given by the fact that we are all born human to let people of other nations make decisions based on what they feel is best for themselves. Our interests are second to their's, especially when they are in ones coutry. From a practical perspective, interfering in another countries business is highly beneficial but from a moral perspective, its simply wrong.

This is all sweet and cozy, but mostly an imagined reality.

Our government's duty is to provide a secure and a safe world for Americans. Everything else comes second. It is not to identify a potential threat and do nothing about it because "Americans must die before we act."

This is the way it has worked since the beginning. I can tell you of a Marine Corps history that goes back to 1775 that provided those securities in many different countries and governments. "Foreign leaders and presidents have their own duties" to their people. But when those duties conflict with the securities of Americans....they have just invited us into their world.

 

[MSgt]

How do you know he would've invaded anyone? Using your magical ball again aren't you?

The threat wasn't invasion. We were not threatened by Castro either were we? We had no worries that Cuba was going to float to Florida and attack. The threat was the Soviet Union's influence during a "Cold War" that involved nuclear arms. Allend was perceived as a threat in this respect.

 

[FinnMacCool]

This is all sweet and cozy, but mostly an imagined reality.

Our government's duty is to provide a secure and a safe world for Americans. Everything else comes second. It is not to identify a potential threat and do nothing about it because "Americans must die before we act."

No one says americans have to die before we act. I just think undermining another nations democracy is wrong, despite the fact that someone just might possibly, maybe, sorta be a potential threat.

This is the way it has worked since the beginning. I can tell you of a Marine Corps history that goes back to 1775 that provided those securities in many different countries and governments. "Foreign leaders and presidents have their own duties" to their people. But when those duties conflict with the securities of Americans....they have just invited us into their world.

They never did though. All we did was end up supporting a fascist dictator who commited numerous attrocities through out his life.

The threat wasn't invasion. We were not threatened by Castro either were we? We had no worries that Cuba was going to float to Florida and attack. The threat was the Soviet Union's influence during a "Cold War" that involved nuclear arms. Allend was perceived as a threat in this respect.

Yeah because he was a democratically elected socialist. Thats it. Not a good enough reason in my opinion.

 

[MSgt]

No one says americans have to die before we act. I just think undermining another nations democracy is wrong, despite the fact that someone just might possibly, maybe, sorta be a potential threat.

Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You agree that Americans should not have to die before we act, yet not when it undermines another nations Democracy. I have a hard time believing that the CIA was just out having fun. Something that was "sort of a potential threat" may have been more of a potential threat than you think. I was not around during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but from what I know about it, our country did not want to entertain another like situation. Our government acted and without sending troops abroad. At the time and to the American people, Vietnam was just yesterday. When we leave Iraq, will the government be so quick to send us into Iran or will it consider the easier notion of allowing the CIA to work with the Iranian dissention to over throw their tyrants? Will it mattre to the American people that this may be a bad thing for the Iranian people in the end?

They never did though. All we did was end up supporting a fascist dictator who commited numerous attrocities through out his life.


Yeah because he was a democratically elected socialist. Thats it. Not a good enough reason in my opinion.

The threat of Soviet influence was removed, and a fascist dictator was the result. It's easy to make those considerations now. It wasn't so easy at the time. What do you think about Pakistan? It is being held together right now by their military. As repugnant as this is to democratic nations, it is a necessity. Pakistan has a Radical element that we do not want to have access to their nuclear arms. Do you support this current action? If somehting happens inside Pakistan or because of Pakistan in the next ten or so years...people will again look back and condemn American action to "support" the "Pakistani dictatorhip." This is how these situations evolve. The result is the Global Left's whining on "America is to blame for the world's problems."

 

[FinnMacCool]

Well, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You agree that Americans should not have to die before we act, yet not when it undermines another nations Democracy. I have a hard time believing that the CIA was just out having fun. Something that was "sort of a potential threat" may have been more of a potential threat than you think. I was not around during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but from what I know about it, our country did not want to entertain another like situation. Our government acted.

I think the government was afraid of communism. I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that he was really a threat. I'm sure the CIA knew that Pinochet didn't have Allende's people in his best interests. I just think they were trying to protect themselves from the perceived threat of communism, which really wasn't a big threat at all.

The threat of Soviet influence was removed, and a fascist dictator was the result. It's easy to make those considerations now. It wasn't so easy at the time. What do you think about Pakistan? It is being held together right now by their military. As repugnant as this is to democratic nations, it is a necessity. Pakistan has a Radical element that we do not want to have access to their nuclear arms. Do you support this current action? If somehting happens inside Pakistan or because of Pakistan in the next ten or so years...people will again look back and condemn American action to "support" the "Pakistani dictatorhip." This is how these situations evolve. The result is the Global Left's whining on "America is to blame for the world's problems."

Yeah but the difference is we haven't tried to insert a dictator in place of a democratically elected leader in Pakistan. I don't really know much about the way Pakistan's gov't so I can't really have a full opinion on this, but I would think a lot of it had to do with Osama, who is probably hiding out in Pakistan.

 

[MSgt]

I think the government was afraid of communism. I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that he was really a threat. I'm sure the CIA knew that Pinochet didn't have Allende's people in his best interests. I just think they were trying to protect themselves from the perceived threat of communism, which really wasn't a big threat at all.

Our government acted and without sending troops abroad. At the time and to the American people, Vietnam was just yesterday. When we leave Iraq, will the government be so quick to send us into Iran or will it consider the easier notion of allowing the CIA to work with the Iranian dissention to over throw their tyrants? Will it mattre to the American people that this may be a bad thing for the Iranian people in the end?

Yeah but the difference is we haven't tried to insert a dictator in place of a democratically elected leader in Pakistan. I don't really know much about the way Pakistan's gov't so I can't really have a full opinion on this, but I would think a lot of it had to do with Osama, who is probably hiding out in Pakistan.

We haven't had to. Every situation demands a unique solution. I'll drop you some insight....

Pakistan has been the greatest disappointment among the major states that tried democracy. It should have been a contender, having begun its nationhood with a legacy of British legal traditions, an educated political class and a vigorous press. Instead, Pakistan became a swamp of corruption, demagogy and hatred. Those who believe in democracy need to recognize an ugly truth: Military government remains Pakistan's final hope — and even that hope is a slight one.

This is painful for us to accept. Well-intentioned Americans with no personal experience of the outrageous criminality that came to characterize every one of Pakistan's major political parties rebel against the notion that any military government can ever be good. Certainly, military regimes are despicable. Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government, albeit imperfect, is the sole exception in the world today.

Pakistan is an artificial country, cobbled together from ethnically different parts and flooded early on with Muslim refugees from India — who still form a distinct social and political bloc. The Pathans of the northwest frontier have more in common with their Afghan neighbors than with the Sindhis on the other side of the Indus River, whose culture reflects that of Mughal India. The Punjabis of Lahore inhabit a different civilization from the tribesmen of Baluchistan. Pakistan's Kashmiris are something else entirely.

Instead of seeking unity, Pakistan's political parties exploited internal divisions for short-term advantage. Well-educated political families, such as the Bhuttos, took a page from the Chinese nationalists, telling Westerners exactly what we wanted to hear. Preaching democracy and the rule of law abroad, they looted shamelessly at home. And they blamed the colonial powers, then America, for the destruction of a once-promising society. No matter their political allegiance, Pakistan's party bosses stole everything in sight, reducing the country to stinging poverty and stunning violence. It wasn't just the remote frontiers that became lawless, but even Karachi, Pakistan's largest city.

The fragile government adheres to the age old culprit of rising tyranny. They appease. It is a cry we hear all too often. "Why did we attack terrorists....we don't want to anger them." The price of being afraid of antagonizing the Radical element inside Pakistan is the same fear that enabled Indonesia to be crippled in Bali. The Pakistani government has learned that the appeasement of monsters only allows them to fester and gather support.

One thing that I have learned from my experiences has become unmistakable: the least-corrupt institution is the military. The military government attempting to rescue Pakistan is the country's last hope. The alternatives are chaos and terror. We may wish it were otherwise: Military government is repugnant. But the world is more complex than we try to make it. Perverted democracy brought ruin upon more than 100 million Pakistani Muslims. We all are paying the price. Pakistan has nuclear arms. If this country's military fails, we will have to endure yet another "Cold War" and our tactics against terror will have to take a HUGE step up. One thing is certain...we did not stymie the nuclear threat of Moscow by invading the U.S.S.R., nor will we make such a wreckless endeavor into another nuclear armed country. (See North Korea.) Once they have nukes, it is too late to do anything. All the more reason to not allow an enemy like Iran its "right" to be like our allies.

At present, Musharraf's government is a useful ally in combating terror, but its greater contribution lies in preventing the country from collapsing into chaos. We all should hope that the day will come when Pakistan's military government becomes obsolete. But for now we must do two things: resist the cynical pleas of the displaced politicians who devastated their own homeland, and learn what we can from democracy's failure on the banks of the Indus. The two essential lessons are pertinent to Iraq.

• First, democracy faces an uphill struggle in tribal cultures where blood ties trump national interests.
• Second, democracy has no worse enemy than corruption.

The world doesn't need another Pakistan, where only bayonets hold the state together. If anyone dooms democracy in Iraq, it won't be the foreign terrorists, but a corrupt political elite. The politicians pave the way for the generals.

MY APOLOGIES FOR DISRUPTING THE THREAD!!!!!!

 

[FinnMacCool]

Our government acted and without sending troops abroad. At the time and to the American people, Vietnam was just yesterday. When we leave Iraq, will the government be so quick to send us into Iran or will it consider the easier notion of allowing the CIA to work with the Iranian dissention to over throw their tyrants? Will it mattre to the American people that this may be a bad thing for the Iranian people in the end?

It doesn't matter if the government sends in troops or doesn't. It's still the same thing if your supporting a dictator. I think Iran is a little bit different though. The American people, including myself, would support action taking against Iran, which is gradually proving themself to be an ACTUAL and REAL threat to us, as opposed to Iraq and Allende thing.

Pakistan is an interesting situation. I've never really thought that a military run gov't, similarily to a monarchy or even a dictatorship, always has to be a bad thing but I do think that it can't lead to anything good in the wrong run. All power corrupts. Who knows what they could possibly be capable of now?

I agree with you about how corruption can weakan a democracy. Even in Ireland, when they were establishing a free state, they commited numerous attrocities on Republicans similar to the British who unleashed the barbaric Auxillaries and Black and Tans on the Irish people.

I agree with the idea that Military is hard to corrupt but thats not exactly a good thing either. THe military always seems to have a set goal for something, unwathering in their means to meet it. Thats not always a good thing, as military run gov'ts have commited numerous attrocities.

 

[MSgt]

It doesn't matter if the government sends in troops or doesn't. It's still the same thing if your supporting a dictator. I think Iran is a little bit different though. The American people, including myself, would support action taking against Iran, which is gradually proving themself to be an ACTUAL and REAL threat to us, as opposed to Iraq and Allende thing.

Pakistan is an interesting situation. I've never really thought that a military run gov't, similarily to a monarchy or even a dictatorship, always has to be a bad thing but I do think that it can't lead to anything good in the wrong run. All power corrupts. Who knows what they could possibly be capable of now?

I agree with you about how corruption can weakan a democracy. Even in Ireland, when they were establishing a free state, they commited numerous attrocities on Republicans similar to the British who unleashed the barbaric Auxillaries and Black and Tans on the Irish people.

I agree with the idea that Military is hard to corrupt but thats not exactly a good thing either. THe military always seems to have a set goal for something, unwathering in their means to meet it. Thats not always a good thing, as military run gov'ts have commited numerous attrocities.

There's not much to argue about here.

Not everything we do is right, but you can always bring yourself to understand neccessity. We could have certainly done a better job with regards to Pinochet. No one could ever say different. For example, we could have used him to oust Allend and then got rid of Pinochet for someone more to our liking. That's just not what happened. We washed our hands of it after we removed the potential threat and Pinochet went on to do what he wanted. I don't agree with how we washed our hands. It is what the "Global Left" like to throw in our faces whenever we embark on a mission to help people now. They use it to exonerate their impotence and it has hurt us.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think the government was afraid of communism. I don't think it had anything to do with the fact that he was really a threat. I'm sure the CIA knew that Pinochet didn't have Allende's people in his best interests. I just think they were trying to protect themselves from the perceived threat of communism, which really wasn't a big threat at all.



Yeah but the difference is we haven't tried to insert a dictator in place of a democratically elected leader in Pakistan. I don't really know much about the way Pakistan's gov't so I can't really have a full opinion on this, but I would think a lot of it had to do with Osama, who is probably hiding out in Pakistan.

What don't you understand about the Chilean Congress ordering the Chilean military under Pinochet, to remove Allende from power for crimes against the Republic namely for attempting to disband the Republic all together in favor of a totalitarian Communist dictatorship.

Pinochet worked for the Republic Allende was a tyrant!

 

[Touchmaster]

Titus, your habit of making long quotes from lunatic websites does you no favours at all. And how you can possibly suggest that Pinochet was anything but a horrendous tyrant given the known facts of the hundreds of thousands of human rights abuses carried out under his regime is beyond me, whether you choose to blame the US for supporting him or not. You still havent explained how, under such a tyrant as allende, there were no political prisoners or disappearances or tortures, yet under Pinochet, that wonderful saviour of Chile, thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands tortured for their political beliefs?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Titus, your habit of making long quotes from lunatic websites does you no favours at all. And how you can possibly suggest that Pinochet was anything but a horrendous tyrant given the known facts of the hundreds of thousands of human rights abuses carried out under his regime is beyond me, whether you choose to blame the US for supporting him or not. You still havent explained how, under such a tyrant as allende, there were no political prisoners or disappearances or tortures, yet under Pinochet, that wonderful saviour of Chile, thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands tortured for their political beliefs?

Crazy sites?

Sorry buddy that was the actual resolution passed by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies (the equivalent of the U.S. House of Representatives) by an overwhelming majority to have the military, under Pinochet, remove the tyrant Allende from power for crimes against the Republic.

Here's what happened first Allende was elected in a highly contested result and then he set about on a campaign of creating a totalitarian Communist dictatorship by violating the Chilean Constitution. Allende was the criminal as were his fellow leftist revolutionaries who intimidated the public and the press Pinochet is the victim of revisionst history something the socialists are notorious for.

 

[Touchmaster]

where did you get that quote from?

and you havent answered my questions about the respective human rights violations of the two administrations.

It is also the case that within his country Allende was mainly criticised for not being socialist enough during his time in office, as his programs were mainly carried out in cooperation with local capitalist elites and were too watered-down for those peasants and poor workers who elected him. His nationalisation program involved continued expropriation of US owned copper mines (most of which had taken place under the previous government) and that is about it - hardly hardline communism, except perhaps his pledge to put more money into healthcare and education. The US fear was not of Soviet Communism - but of losing Chile as an open market to plunder.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

where did you get that quote from?

and you havent answered my questions about the respective human rights violations of the two administrations.

It is also the case that within his country Allende was mainly criticised for not being socialist enough during his time in office, as his programs were mainly carried out in cooperation with local capitalist elites and were too watered-down for those peasants and poor workers who elected him. His nationalisation program involved continued expropriation of US owned copper mines (most of which had taken place under the previous government) and that is about it - hardly hardline communism, except perhaps his pledge to put more money into healthcare and education. The US fear was not of Soviet Communism - but of losing Chile as an open market to plunder.

It's not a quote it's the historical record-

http://www.economiaysociedad.com/declaration.html

http://www.josepinera.com/pag/pag_tex_quiebredemoc_en.htm

The ousting of Allende had nothing to do with the U.S. is was an order of the elected Chilean Deputy of Chambers the equivalent to the U.S. House of Representatives.

As for the rest of your crap the fact remains that Allende was guilty of crimes against the Republic as was made clear by the Chamber of Deputies Resolution to have him forcefully removed from office. The had no impeachment proceedings built into the Constitution, a coup de'ta was the only option.

 

[Touchmaster]

you havent answered my questions about the respective human rights violations of the two administrations, im pretty sure that summary executions of thousands of people was unconstitutional..?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

you havent answered my questions about the respective human rights violations of the two administrations, im pretty sure that summary executions of thousands of people was unconstitutional..?

The answer to the question is clearly defined in the above Resolution, that's why I posted it, through the brutal repression of the press and the arming of illegal militias and the usurping of military and police power to be used against dissidents, Allende was guilty of crimes against the Republic and against the Chilean people.

Did you even read the Resolution?

 

[Touchmaster]

you will make a good politician, you are excellent at failing to answer questions. hoiw many political prisoners were there in the three years of allende's government compared with pinochet's regime? How many people were summarily executed under allende's government compared with Pinochet's regime? (hint, the answer is 0 under Allende and at least 3000 with many more disappeared under Pinochet).

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

you will make a good politician, you are excellent at failing to answer questions. hoiw many political prisoners were there in the three years of allende's government compared with pinochet's regime? How many people were summarily executed under allende's government compared with Pinochet's regime? (hint, the answer is 0 under Allende and at least 3000 with many more disappeared under Pinochet).

Where do you get the 3,000 figure from? Noam Chomsky's website?

The fact of the matter is that Allende violated the Chilean Constitution and set out to destroy the Republic and without Pinochet he would have succeeded.

As for your 0 number under Allende that's horseshit the brutal intimidation under the Allende regime is one of the points mentioned in the Resolution, read the resolution or I'm done discussing it with you.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Long live Alpha 66, let live the revolution, death to tyrants and thus always for tyrants, liberty or death!

Thank you for the translation.

 

[FinnMacCool]

Where do you get the 3,000 figure from? Noam Chomsky's website?

Why do you constantly snipe at Chompsky? He's an anarcho-syndicalist intellectual, on a completely different level from people like Michael Moore and O'Reilly. Does the fact that he is quoted often by liberals make you angry or something?

 

[Comrade Brian]

The fact of the matter is that Allende violated the Chilean Constitution and set out to destroy the Republic and without Pinochet he would have succeeded.

Are you saying Pinochet is better than Allende?
I would think killing the president is mighty illegal.